Super-rich hide trillions offshore

[dead]

The world's richest individuals have placed $11.5 trillion of assets in offshore havens, mainly as a tax avoidance measure. The shock new figure - 10 times Britain's GDP - is contained in the most authoritative study of the wealth held in offshore accounts ever conducted.

The study, by Tax Justice Network, a group of accountants and economists concerned at the escalating wealth held in offshore locations, shows that the world's high-net-worth individuals earn $860 billion each year from their assets.

But there is growing alarm among regulators and campaigners because exchequers worldwide are missing out on at least $255bn of tax each year. Governments appear unable, or unwilling, to prevent the rich employing aggressive strategies to minimise their tax liabilities.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1446127,00.html

don't you love it they tax you poor while the rich are hiding their money

[shade]

I dont believe that assets should be taxed. Only income should be taxed. As such, I could care less.

[kevinsmith]

I dont believe that assets should be taxed. Only income should be taxed. As such, I could care less.

Exactly!
The government shouldn't have to take so much money from us, but they do in order to keep all the bullshit programs that we really don't need going.
Besides, us "poor" people are only getting taxed on income, since we don't have these whopping assets.

[gigatonblast]

*sighs*
Its a non story.

dead, haved you ever had a job ?
If yes....have you ever had a savings account ?
Would you want your savings taxed ?

[dead]

*sighs*
Its a non story.

dead, haved you ever had a job ?
If yes....have you ever had a savings account ?
Would you want your savings taxed ?
yes yes and yes.
here it's already taxed above a certain amount and i think the goverment also makes much mistakes.
but this is no reason to have no asset tax it will benefit the middle and lower class more than it will benefit the upperclass.
the goverment not only takes money in some country's they give some money back in the form of schooling and affordable healtcare.
and i find it funny how much poeple take the side of the rich who probably will never become it.

[Kazimierz]

Which is why the income of rich should be taxed higher than that of the poor.

[Nocturnal]

not 100% on this, but income made from off shore money is generaly not taxed

[Sketcher]

yes yes and yes.

Wait, you actually WANT your savings account taxed? I can't possibly think of a good reason for this.

[Viet Era Marine]

Wait, you actually WANT your savings account taxed? I can't possibly think of a good reason for this.


Dead is in college, has never held a job & still
believes in the "Tooth Fairy".

You poor sucker, wait till your Gov buddies snatch
46-48% of your first check so some crack Ho can
get her next fix. Then come back here and tell us
all about it.

See you then.

Regards,
VEM

[dead]

Dead is in college, has never held a job & still
believes in the "Tooth Fairy".

You poor sucker, wait till your Gov buddies snatch
46-48% of your first check so some crack Ho can
get her next fix. Then come back here and tell us
all about it.

See you then.

Regards,
VEM
maybe i should move to america then where they have no good anti drugs program ;).
then i know for sure my money goes to a oil war or a crack ho.
our hookers pay their own tax

[Sketcher]

maybe i should move to america then where they have no good anti drugs program ;).
then i know for sure my money goes to a oil war or a crack ho.
our hookers pay their own tax

It's not about prostitutes paying tax seeing as how it's illegal. It's about our tax dollars going towards their welfare.

[dead]

i know that's the point but i think a better, goverment funded anti drugs program would help a lot to keep those poeple out off the welfare.
i have no problem in paying more tax if that in the long run will help other poeple.

[Sketcher]

i know that's the point but i think a better, goverment funded anti drugs program would help a lot to keep those poeple out off the welfare.

How? How does an anti drug program keep people from becomming prostitutes or even more, how does it keep people off of welfare? Alot of people who are on welfare don't do drugs and alot of people who do drugs aren't on welfare. The two just don't go hand in hand.

[Kazimierz]

i know that's the point but i think a better, goverment funded anti drugs program would help a lot to keep those poeple out off the welfare.
i have no problem in paying more tax if that in the long run will help other poeple.

Legalizing drugs would provide income that would exceed anti-drug spending, and would decrease overall drug usage in the long run.

But God* says ganja is bad!

*The religious conservatives

And money is taxed when made overseas as well. Americans working overseas must still file with the IRS at their consulate (But there are credits taken out because the country you are in also taxes you).

[dead]

How? How does an anti drug program keep people from becomming prostitutes or even more, how does it keep people off of welfare? Alot of people who are on welfare don't do drugs and alot of people who do drugs aren't on welfare. The two just don't go hand in hand.
do you know why a crack ho becomes a ho ?
sorry that i was generalising but a better funded anti drugs program would help to keep some poeple out of the welfare.

[Sketcher]

do you know why a crack ho becomes a ho ?
sorry that i was generalising but a better funded anti drugs program would help to keep some poeple out of the welfare.

Like Kaz said, legalizing drugs would solve the problem much better. Think about it. Price of drugs would go down and some slut wouldn't have to sell herself to buy it. And there won't be any more unnecessary spending for these anti drug programs. I also think the current welfare system needs to be complety re-thought.

And Kaz, I'm a religious conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. That sterotype is really starting to get old.

[dead]

Like Kaz said, legalizing drugs would solve the problem much better. Think about it. Price of drugs would go down and some slut wouldn't have to sell herself to buy it. And there won't be any more unnecessary spending for these anti drug programs. I also think the current welfare system needs to be complety re-thought.

And Kaz, I'm a religious conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. That sterotype is really starting to get old.
i am all for legalising soft drugs but as for hard drugs that stuff really fucks up your life.

[Blue25]

the problem is these people have extremly high worth assets, i believe that they should pay huge tax, why? because i don't think there is anyone on this planet today who deserves to have 860 million a year. and the only reason they are buying these rigs is because they don't have anything else to do with their money, so instead of being so greddy i say we tax the living shit out of them and give the money to childeren in africa or even start rebuilding iraq or fuck even if u wanan keep it in the states, pay off some debt, help homelss people, or just pump more money into the economy.

[Sketcher]

the problem is these people have extremly high worth assets, i believe that they should pay huge tax, why? because i don't think there is anyone on this planet today who deserves to have 860 million a year.

If you don't think anyone should have that much money, stop going to movies. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying computer stuff. Stop going to pro sports games. Stop buying name brand anything (ie: Nike, Adidas, Microsoft whatever). These people are rich because WE make them rich. You give them their money then you complain that they have too much.

[jn_powell]

the problem is these people have extremly high worth assets, i believe that they should pay huge tax, why? because i don't think there is anyone on this planet today who deserves to have 860 million a year. and the only reason they are buying these rigs is because they don't have anything else to do with their money, so instead of being so greddy i say we tax the living shit out of them and give the money to childeren in africa or even start rebuilding iraq or fuck even if u wanan keep it in the states, pay off some debt, help homelss people, or just pump more money into the economy.
cap·i·tal·ism n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market

They earn it, they should do what they wish with it.

[Sketcher]

They earn it, they should do what they wish with it.

Exactly. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. You got some serious problems if you want people to pay more taxes than you just because they're more successful.

People who say that the rich could afford more taxes are completely wrong. They may make more money per year than you but they pay A HELL alot more in insurence, mortgage, bills, paying all their employees and all the other expenses the average person doesn't have. Everyone should be taxed the same percentage of what they make. The rich end up paying more in taxes that way anyway.

[Kazimierz]

Exactly. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. You got some serious problems if you want people to pay more taxes than you just because they're more successful.

The more you make the more you get taxed, period. That's how it is RIGHT NOW.

People who say that the rich could afford more taxes are completely wrong. They may make more money per year than you but they pay A HELL alot more in insurence, mortgage, bills, paying all their employees and all the other expenses the average person doesn't have. Everyone should be taxed the same percentage of what they make. The rich end up paying more in taxes that way anyway.

The rich can't afford more taxes, but they can afford to put TRILLIONS into overseas banks?

[Sketcher]

The more you make the more you get taxed, period. That's how it is RIGHT NOW.

Right. And I'm saying that we should all be taxed the same percentage. A certain percentage of my income is a hell alot smaller than that same percentage of a millionaire's income. So the rich would be still be taxed more. I just don't see a need to make that percentage higher depending on the amount of money you earn.

The rich can't afford more taxes, but they can afford to put TRILLIONS into overseas banks?

That's all of them together, not each one. And besides, people like Bill Gates would be an exception. I'm talking about the everyday millionaires or even people just making a couple hundred thousand per year. Cause after all, those people are considered rich according to the government.

[Nocturnal]

And Kaz, I'm a religious conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. That sterotype is really starting to get old.

it's an accurate one though, the vast majority of religious conservatives are against legalizing drugs

cap·i·tal·ism n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market

They earn it, they should do what they wish with it.

The Free market is a myth, these individuals do not face a competive "fair" market. If the market was perfectly free people would not be able to accumulate so much money.


People who say that the rich could afford more taxes are completely wrong.

That is completely wrong, the wealthier you are the more you can afford to pay. Staples of life do not increase in cost, they buy the same gas, the same milk, etc. Even things such as cars and clothes do not increase as much as their income does.

For a simple proof of this you need only look at the ratio of savings per income. It is a fact that the more income you recieve the smaller percentage of your money you spend. (the rest going to savings) These super rich individuals sitting on vast family fortunes are actually hurting the world economy.

The wealthy should pay more, both percentage and total. They use a greater amount of the system's resources and they can afford it. If we taxed everyone the same percentage we would either go bankrupt or see mass starvation.

[jn_powell]

The Free market is a myth, these individuals do not face a competive "fair" market. If the market was perfectly free people would not be able to accumulate so much money.

Really? Why don't you tell that to people like Bill gates. He built a multibillion dollar corporation from the ground up. True he may not face much competition, but that is simply because they beat out or bought out all the competition. I personally don't care for Microsoft, but you can't argue the fact that he built it from the ground up.

[Nocturnal]

Really? Why don't you tell that to people like Bill gates. He built a multibillion dollar corporation from the ground up. True he may not face much competition, but that is simply because they beat out or bought out all the competition. I personally don't care for Microsoft, but you can't argue the fact that he built it from the ground up.

of course he did, he exploited a new market,

If you woke up tommrow and decided that you wanted to create an operating system to compete with Mircosoft (assuming you knew enough about programing) could you? What if somebody gave you a million dollars to get started?

The lack of the true free market is the reason why the government has to step in and control some aspects of the economy. same with unions

[jn_powell]

of course he did, he exploited a new market,

If you woke up tommrow and decided that you wanted to create an operating system to compete with Mircosoft (assuming you knew enough about programing) could you? What if somebody gave you a million dollars to get started?

The lack of the true free market is the reason why the government has to step in and control some aspects of the economy. same with unions
I agree with you but the point I am trying to make is that there are always opportunities for those with enough drive and intelligence to build their business. And back to the topic at hand, I feel that those who make money like that (except athletes and actors, they make way too much) should not be taxed overly heavily. (not sure if that is grammatically correct but oh well)

[Sketcher]

of course he did, he exploited a new market,

If you woke up tommrow and decided that you wanted to create an operating system to compete with Mircosoft (assuming you knew enough about programing) could you? What if somebody gave you a million dollars to get started?

The lack of the true free market is the reason why the government has to step in and control some aspects of the economy. same with unions

I actually read a stastic that more and more people are buying Macs every year. Apple is competing with Microsoft and is doing a pretty damn good job.

Look at how Firefox is out doing IE now. Or how Google went straight to the top even though they wern't the first. Even look at how AOL is being pissed on now even though they were once at the top. Hell, even eBaum is a millionaire.

Anyone can start up a new company and successfully compete aganist an already standing corporation. They just have to be good at what they do and know how to target customers effectively.

[Kazimierz]

Right. And I'm saying that we should all be taxed the same percentage. A certain percentage of my income is a hell alot smaller than that same percentage of a millionaire's income. So the rich would be still be taxed more. I just don't see a need to make that percentage higher depending on the amount of money you earn.

I think someone making 20,000 a year should be taxed a smaller percentage than someone making 400,000 a year. But, hell, im all for a flat tax too. But those who make more than 100,000 a year are very influential when it comes to politics, and they would disagree on both options.

That's all of them together, not each one. And besides, people like Bill Gates would be an exception. I'm talking about the everyday millionaires or even people just making a couple hundred thousand per year. Cause after all, those people are considered rich according to the government.

Dont be naive. Making 100,000 a year you're in a much better position than making 20,000 a year. Paying more for mortgage/insurance is only possible WHEN YOU HAVE more money, and as a result, a better lifestyle. Paying employees is a business thing. If you are rich enough to have a butler/maid, then you are better off than another person. If AFTER paying for the butler/maid/benz/etc you cant afford paying taxes, then you've over-estimated your wealth. Buying stupid shit and THEN not being able to pay taxes is not an excuse.

[JokingClown]

Which is why the income of rich should be taxed higher than that of the poor.

They shouldnt, but as it is, they arent taxed AT ALL alot of times, while we get taxe 1/3 to 1/2 or so of our money.

They have good lawyers and advisers to help them cheat the system. they know the loopholes, and the use offshore banking. If you are curious, go google how much walmart had to pay in taxes over the last few years. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. in fact they got money back. actually, they didnt get money BACK because they didnt pay anything to begin with.

[Blue25]

Right. And I'm saying that we should all be taxed the same percentage.

no way i disagree, how can u say someone who busts their ass everyday working 2 jobs should pay the same as someone who was just lucky enough to be born into a rich family? or better yet how can a solider (who served his country) be taxed the same as those fat cats who sit in their manhattan sky rises and sign papers all day. i think it's bs. now just so we're on the same page i'm talkin about the big money makers like comparing those who make 250 000+ a year compared to the other bit and i think their should also be an extremer where those who make 1 million + should pay even more.


I just don't see a need to make that percentage higher depending on the amount of money you earn.

you earn? by what lieing and cheating the little people out of 11 BILLION dollars, by being happy that your daddy was a hard worker and started a great company and all u do it read the documents? by sitting back and readin the reports of how some 6 year old kids make your companies shoes? no offense their are some great buisness people, i personally don't think they deserve all the money but w/e all i'm asking is that they pay a little bit more in taxes, it won't kill them and the money could help out the less fortunate.

somoene also said about me complaning about these companies, i am and truthfully i really don't buy a lot of corperate stuff, i mean ya of course i've had my pairs of nike and addidas shoes, but to me it doesn't matter who makes it as long as i liek it.

and someone said soemthin about free market? thats b/s. you need money to make money. even if i had the most amazing idea for a shoe or w/e there is no way i could compete with nike or addidas, why? because i don't have any moeny to invest and second i don't have the advertising power as those huge corperations do. in theory yes i could compete with them, but in reality there is just no way.

Note: sorry i may have called nike and addidas corperations, i'm not sure if they are.

[Sketcher]

no way i disagree, how can u say someone who busts their ass everyday working 2 jobs should pay the same as someone who was just lucky enough to be born into a rich family? or better yet how can a solider (who served his country) be taxed the same as those fat cats who sit in their manhattan sky rises and sign papers all day. i think it's bs. now just so we're on the same page i'm talkin about the big money makers like comparing those who make 250 000+ a year compared to the other bit and i think their should also be an extremer where those who make 1 million + should pay even more.

Wow, you really dont get it. I'm not saying that they should pay the same, I'm saying that they SHOULD PAY THE SAME PERCENTAGE. In case you still don't understand, here's an example: 50% of what I make is a HELL ALOT less than 50% of what Bill Gates makes. So if we were each taxed 50% of our income, he would be paying A HELL ALOT more than me. Get it now?

And what makes you think all the rich people just inherited their money? About 90% of them have that money because they worked their ass off. Bill Gates started his company from scratch. I have an uncle who built a company from scratch and is now extremely wealthy. Your telling me they didn't work their ass off? Rich people don't just sit in their mansion all day drinking wine and watching TV. You have no idea how fucking hard it is keeping a comapny or especially a large corporation running.

[Kazimierz]

Wow, you really dont get it. I'm not saying that they should pay the same, I'm saying that they SHOULD PAY THE SAME PERCENTAGE. In case you still don't understand, here's an example: 50% of what I make is a HELL ALOT less than 50% of what Bill Gates makes. So if we were each taxed 50% of our income, he would be paying A HELL ALOT more than me. Get it now?

What about CEOs that get paid salaries of $1, with private jets, housing and bonuses provided by the company? Should they be taxed based on how much they make? It's a lot more complicated than it is, and these complications are how people are able to fuck (legally) the system.

And what makes you think all the rich people just inherited their money? about 90% of them have that money because they worked their ass off. Bill Gates started his company from scratch. I have an uncle who built a company from scratch and is now extremely wealthy. Your telling me they didn't work their ass off? Rich people don't just sit in their mansion all day drinking wine and watching TV. You have no idea how fucking hard it is keeping a comapny or especially a large corporation running.

I hear its pretty hard work to pull 8 hour shifts as a stonemason 5 days a week for a lifetime.

People are taxed based upon how much they make. The rich (not all, chief) have the resources to find loopholes and pay less. If you pay $5000 a year in taxes, are you going to spend $10000 on a great accountant that will cut that in half? What if you make a hundred thousand?

[Blue25]

Wow, you really dont get it. I'm not saying that they should pay the same, I'm saying that they SHOULD PAY THE SAME PERCENTAGE. In case you still don't understand, here's an example: 50% of what I make is a HELL ALOT less than 50% of what Bill Gates makes. So if we were each taxed 50% of our income, he would be paying A HELL ALOT more than me. Get it now?

i get it, but do u? for some people 50% is the difference between whether they're gunna put food on the table and for those rich folks 50% is the difference between whether they buy their next estate in tuscany or bora bora. i understand they do pay more then us in taxes, but the effect taxes have on the lower income population and the higher income population is totally different.


And what makes you think all the rich people just inherited their money? About 90% of them have that money because they worked their ass off. Bill Gates started his company from scratch. I have an uncle who built a company from scratch and is now extremely wealthy. Your telling me they didn't work their ass off? Rich people don't just sit in their mansion all day drinking wine and watching TV. You have no idea how fucking hard it is keeping a comapny or especially a large corporation running.

first of all no way in hell those who invested 11 trillion in off sore oil riges are self made billionares, sorry buddy just not happening, and yes many succesful SMALL buisness owners make all the money themselves, thats great good for them, but we're not talkin about them we're talkin about the big money makers.

and i know calling people all day and signing documents is fucking tiering. sorry buddy but no way in hell u can tell me running a buisness is harder work then shoveling coal for your whole life.


You have no idea how fucking hard it is keeping a comapny or especially a large corporation running.

oh i know man, getting those accountants to fraudalize those statements is hard work.
don't make buisness into slave labour yet, yes it's hard work and i respect many buisness people but don't even try to put up an argument that they work harder then the average shmo.

[shade]

and i find it funny how much poeple take the side of the rich who probably will never become it.Do you also find it funny that heterosexuals have an opinion about gay marriage? How about men who have an opinion about abortion? Or non-homeless people who care about the homeless? Why should they care? Its not like they will probably ever be in that same situation.

Simply put, it doesnt matter if you will ever be in a particular situation to have a moral opinion about it.

My moral opinion is that people should only be taxed at one point, income. If someone chooses to save their money, and wisely invest it making capital available for new business and employment I see no reason for the government to be allowed to take it all of the sudden.

[Sketcher]

first of all no way in hell those who invested 11 trillion in off sore oil riges are self made billionares, sorry buddy just not happening, and yes many succesful SMALL buisness owners make all the money themselves, thats great good for them, but we're not talkin about them we're talkin about the big money makers.

If your talking about the original link this thread was started over, that 11 trillion figure is how much they all have overseas alltogether. Not just one person. And yes, a person with that much money can build up that buisness themselves. Again I will use Bill Gates as an example. He's worth what, 40 something billion? He started out in a fucking garage.

and i know calling people all day and signing documents is fucking tiering. sorry buddy but no way in hell u can tell me running a buisness is harder work then shoveling coal for your whole life.

Funny you mention that. I actually know someone who owns a multimillion dollar buisness and someone who used to work in a coal mine. The term "working your ass off" doesn't refer to just manual labor. Sorry to break it to you.

I'm currently studying graphic design. A few weeks ago, I did a logo for a company. I spent 11 hours working on JUST THE CONCEPTS for the design. That doesn't even include the final product. Do even know how stressful that is? And that's just a simple logo. I still have a whole life ahead of me of doing all types of designs whether it be magazines, CDs, posters, billboards, packaging, whatever. What if I decided to start up my own advertising agency? What if it became extremely successful? Does that mean that I didn't work my ass off just because I didn't break my back pushing a wheel barrow? Your logic is horribly flawed.

[Blue25]

If your talking about the original link this thread was started over, that 11 trillion figure is how much they all have overseas alltogether. Not just one person. And yes, a person with that much money can build up that buisness themselves. Again I will use Bill Gates as an example. He's worth what, 40 something billion? He started out in a fucking garage.

yes ok bill gates anyone else?


Funny you mention that. I actually know someone who owns a multimillion dollar buisness and someone who used to work in a coal mine. The term "working your ass off" doesn't refer to just manual labor. Sorry to break it to you.

absolutly not, but manual labor is harder work then any other.


I'm currently studying graphic design. A few weeks ago, I did a logo for a company. I spent 11 hours working on JUST THE CONCEPTS for the design. That doesn't even include the final product. Do even know how stressful that is? And that's just a simple logo. I still have a whole life ahead of me of doing all types of designs whether it be magazines, CDs, posters, billboards, packaging, whatever. What if I decided to start up my own advertising agency? What if it became extremely successful? Does that mean that I didn't work my ass off just because I didn't break my back pushing a wheel barrow? Your logic is horribly flawed.
no, thats exactly what i'm saying, you don't have to bust your ass doing manual labour to be succesful, but u were making the impression that u thought buisness was extremly difficult and if anythin just as difficult as manual labour, and it's not, it probbaly is more stressful, but the work itself is no way as hard.

but good stuff man, i wish u all the best luck in your graphic design career.

[Terabyte]

If they hid trillions, how would anyone find out about it? And if someone did find out, why would they tell anyone?

I'd take as much as I can, and sell it.

[shade]

yes ok bill gates anyone else?Benjamin Franklin.

[Kazimierz]

Funny you mention that. I actually know someone who owns a multimillion dollar buisness and someone who used to work in a coal mine. The term "working your ass off" doesn't refer to just manual labor. Sorry to break it to you.

No, it doesn't. But you're coming off saying millionaires work harder than the blue collar folks. For the most part it's not true. What they are being paid for is intelligence, leadership and experience, not physical ability. Working in a coal mine IS harder than being a board member at Intel. Sorry, it's true.

I'm currently studying graphic design. A few weeks ago, I did a logo for a company. I spent 11 hours working on JUST THE CONCEPTS for the design. That doesn't even include the final product. Do even know how stressful that is? And that's just a simple logo. I still have a whole life ahead of me of doing all types of designs whether it be magazines, CDs, posters, billboards, packaging, whatever. What if I decided to start up my own advertising agency? What if it became extremely successful? Does that mean that I didn't work my ass off just because I didn't break my back pushing a wheel barrow? Your logic is horribly flawed.

I'd rather sit on a computer and draw for 11 hours a day than work for 8 hours laying brick. I've done both. Have you?

If you started your own agency, you would likely have employees, who would also work. If you have your own company, and are working MORE than 11 hours a day, then you need some courses in business.

[shade]

What about CEOs that get paid salaries of $1, with private jets, housing and bonuses provided by the company?That is a lot more rare than you think. Stuff like that really pisses off shareholders. Damn, you should hear my dad bitch about this $125k piece of 'art' that his boss bought for their building.

[Kazimierz]

That is a lot more rare than you think. Stuff like that really pisses off shareholders. Damn, you should hear my dad bitch about this $125k piece of 'art' that his boss bought for their building.

Stuff like that still happens. And when a CEO increases profits by 10%, stockholders dont care so much.

[shade]

Kaz, youre ignorant on this topic. You have only heard of the few situations that make it to the news. I assure you that what you speak of is extremely rare.

[Kazimierz]

Kaz, youre ignorant on this topic. You have only heard of the few situations that make it to the news. I assure you that what you speak of is extremely rare.

Sorry?

It's true i dont really research CEO pay. But if it's happened once and been publicized, it's too much. Anyhow, just giving an example of the uber-rich trying to screw the system. If they payed more, the people who need the money would pay less.

Didn't Warren Buffett say that an extra 100,000 in his hands would do less to help the economy than 1,000 in the hands of 100? Or something to that extent.

[daveo the great]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."


One man makes $25,000 a year. another, $2,500,000.

say it costs $20,000 to pay for 3 meals a day, gas, a crappy car, basic clothing and a small appartment, you know the essentials of living.

it costs the exact same for each person.

now, both have to pay 20% in overall taxes (assuming flat%). person A pays 5,000. person B pays 500,000.

this leaves A with $0 to spend on luxuries, emergenicies, children...

person B is left with $1,980,000. to spend on luxuries like a big house, an extra car, emergencies, children, etc....

say the government needed more money... not TOO much more, just enough to fund the new aircraft carriors, stealth bombers, and a new anti-drug, pro education system.

there are two ways to fund the needed increase... tax everyone 21% up from 20%, or tax the top 5% of people 25% while keeping others at 20%.

so instead of putting person A into the red, cutting his meals down to 2 a day, not able to shower every day, and still slipping into debt; we cut the top 5% to $1,875,000 for luxuries down from 1980,000. do you think thats fair? with a flat %, person A cannot afford the basic essentials, with the graduated % A survives as normal, and B makes do with 1.875 million dollars.

[dead]

Kaz, youre ignorant on this topic. You have only heard of the few situations that make it to the news. I assure you that what you speak of is extremely rare.
you are right it's extremely rare that it comes in the news ;)
here in the netherlands we had a agreement between the employees, ceo's and the goverment that we for 1 year had a very small raise in salary and what happenend after a year just have 1 guess how much the salary has rissen of the different sides of the agreements.
Employees about 2% govement jobs about 2% and ceo's about 34% procent.

Sorry?

It's true i dont really research CEO pay. But if it's happened once and been publicized, it's too much. Anyhow, just giving an example of the uber-rich trying to screw the system. If they payed more, the people who need the money would pay less.

Didn't Warren Buffett say that an extra 100,000 in his hands would do less to help the economy than 1,000 in the hands of 100? Or something to that extent.
he is right, warren buffet is investing abroard in foreign currency :icon_rofl
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=warren+buffet+foreign+currency+&meta=

[Sketcher]

yes ok bill gates anyone else?
Like I said earlier, my uncle. Try no to think of the best known companys like microsoft or Nike. There are tens of thousands of buisnesses around the country, most of which none of us have ever heard of where the owner is a millionair.

absolutly not, but manual labor is harder work then any other.
Harder for who? It all depends on the person, not the work. The guy who build a deck and put a new roof on my house last summer has been doing that for 20+ years. He could do it with his eyes closed. But I bet if he tried to design an advertisement for a company, he'd think it was extremely hard. On the other hand, after 20 years of me doing that, it would be nothing more than just another project.



but good stuff man, i wish u all the best luck in your graphic design career.
Thank you.

[bergshadow]

Kaz And money is taxed when made overseas as well. Americans working overseas must still file with the IRS at their consulate Did you notice a few weeks ago when W&Co gave the overseas money a tax holiday? Not zero, mind you, just a big break especially for them.

jn powell
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market

They earn it, they should do what they wish with it. And we provided the social and legal and physical infrastructure they used in their worthy efforts, and we should be able to charge what we feel are appropriate fees for such obviously valuable services. Or they can take their business genius to Angola, and start out in a garage there.
I personally don't care for Microsoft, but you can't argue the fact that he built it from the ground up. The enormous boost he got from the readymade legal system and social infrastructure, (patent and copyright laws, stock and options, corporate structure, stable monetary system, public schools producing office help, reliable electricity, etc) was and is worth a fortune to him. We get a cut, and not a small one.

Sketcher I just don't see a need to make that percentage higher depending on the amount of money you earn. Because larger amounts of money 1) are worth less per dollar, so equivalent sacrifice is larger and 2) automatically use a higher percentage of government services - treaties, government contracts, oversight of banks and stock markets and commodity exchanges, inheritance guarantees, various expensive and sophisticated political/legal infrastructure and 3) get more percentage value from the common services - it's worth a higher percentage to safeguard a bigger amount through competent law enforcement, for example.
You have no idea how fucking hard it is keeping a comapny or especially a large corporation running.
-
I spent 11 hours working on JUST THE CONCEPTS for the design. That doesn't even include the final product. Do even know how stressful that is? We have data, in this matter. It is possible to measure cumulative stress in people of various professions (certain blood chemicals, other measurable physiological features), and such measurements have been made. The lowest stress levels are found among top executives. The highest stress levels are found among lower level service providers. Nurses have more stress than doctors, for example, and salesmen more than sales managers more than dealership owners. Having a customer in front of you is stressful - having a boss over your shoulder at the same time adds to the stress.
shade Kaz, youre ignorant on this topic. You have only heard of the few situations that make it to the news. I assure you that what you speak of is extremely rare.
Not among those hiding their money offshore, it isn't.

[Blue25]

Like I said earlier, my uncle. Try no to think of the best known companys like microsoft or Nike. There are tens of thousands of buisnesses around the country, most of which none of us have ever heard of where the owner is a millionair.

yes, but the group that invested 11 trillion were not just the average millionares, i'd say they were at least billionares.


Harder for who? It all depends on the person, not the work. The guy who build a deck and put a new roof on my house last summer has been doing that for 20+ years. He could do it with his eyes closed. But I bet if he tried to design an advertisement for a company, he'd think it was extremely hard. On the other hand, after 20 years of me doing that, it would be nothing more than just another project.

i don't think so, anyone who does manual labour would love to sit at home all day and make up designs, they wouldn't probbaly be good at it but the work would be easier.
your making buisness out into this extremly hard career and it's not true, yes it is hard but not as hard as other jobs.


If you started your own agency, you would likely have employees, who would also work. If you have your own company, and are working MORE than 11 hours a day, then you need some courses in business.

well he wouldn't spend 11 hours in the office thats FOR SURE. but he technically might still be doing his job, like gettins calls at home and stuff like that about different buisness deals and such, even with that though i agree it's hard to say that they really work 11 hours....i'd say 9-10 hours at most, counting time put into the buisness outside of acctual "work".


Benjamin Franklin.

see, my point is you don't have many people who have started a buisness from scratch and made it into a multi-trillion dollar company, many of those people usually have a good start, like Trump, who's father taught him everythign about buisness and he worked with him for many years.

and you said about stuff liek this not happening often...umm look at the last few years, Enron, Wroldcom, Martha Stewart, and these are only the ones that make it out, i personally think ALL large corperations are corrupt, some more then others but they all are corrupt, they know how to get them selves out of tight spots through lop holes in the law and such, but like i said they all are corrupt maybe some by only a few hundred tousand and others by billions.

[shade]

see, my point is you don't have many people who have started a buisness from scratch and made it into a multi-trillion dollar company, many of those people usually have a good start, like Trump, who's father taught him everythign about buisness and he worked with him for many years. But there are thousands who have made multi-million dollar and even multi-billion dollar companies. People like Bill Gates, Ross Perot, and Ben Franklin are rare. Basically, a billion dollars is a ridiculous amount of money. However, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have built up a company and at the same time made themselves multi-millionaires.

and you said about stuff liek this not happening often...umm look at the last few years, Enron, Wroldcom, Martha Stewart, and these are only the ones that make it outAnd how many companies are there? As I said, you are simply ignorant on the topic and can only cite instances that made it to the news because they were unique, and therefore, newsworthy.

i personally think ALL large corperations are corruptYour opinion has no affect on reality though.

Learn to spell please.

[bergshadow]

shade However, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have built up a company and at the same time made themselves multi-millionaires. ? Wouldn't that be like 10-20% of all self-employed people?

[Sketcher]

yes, but the group that invested 11 trillion were not just the average millionares, i'd say they were at least billionares.

True, but the point I was making was that the vast majority of rich people are rich because they made themselves that way, not because they won the lottery or had a rich relative.


i don't think so, anyone who does manual labour would love to sit at home all day and make up designs, they wouldn't probbaly be good at it but the work would be easier.
your making buisness out into this extremly hard career and it's not true, yes it is hard but not as hard as other jobs.

Oh, I do think so. Take a look at the photoshop showoff thread in the picture section. Most of those designs are very very good pieces. But alot of them, if the person who made them were to take it to my graphic design teacher for a critique, he would completely destroy them, bring them back to life, and destroy them again. He's done it to me plenty of times. I can do something that looks amazing and he would tear it apart by giving me all these reasons of why that design, no matter how good it looks, would not work. We usually spend about 4 - 5 weeks just one one project because he has us redo them so many times. Every time we redo it, he would find more wrong with it. And you know what? He's a damn good teacher.

Like I said, hard is in the eye of the beholder. What's hard for one person is just a simple task for another. That's fact.

[shade]

? Wouldn't that be like 10-20% of all self-employed people?I have no idea how many self employed there are. I am not limiting my statement to self employed either. I know there are more than 1 million millionaires in the US though. Most of those are probably self employed or high up in the food chain of a company and helped build it up to what it is today.

[Armed&Angry]

If you don't think anyone should have that much money, stop going to movies. Stop going to concerts. Stop buying computer stuff. Stop going to pro sports games. Stop buying name brand anything (ie: Nike, Adidas, Microsoft whatever). These people are rich because WE make them rich. You give them their money then you complain that they have too much.
*bows to Sketcher* GIVE EM HELL, SKETCHER!

[shade]

These people are rich because WE make them rich.Not to mention, all of those expenses are unnecessary luxuries. There are probably a lot of people poorer than you that cant afford those luxuries. To them, even you are rich. How dare you waste money when there are poorer people in society that need your help!!

[jn_powell]

Not to mention, all of those expenses are unnecessary luxuries. There are probably a lot of people poorer than you that cant afford those luxuries. To them, even you are rich. How dare you waste money when there are poorer people in society that need your help!!
How dare you try to tell anyone what they need to do with their money that they have earned.

[Blue25]

And how many companies are there? As I said, you are simply ignorant on the topic and can only cite instances that made it to the news because they were unique, and therefore, newsworthy.

ignorent? why because i can see past the blind fold? what your saying is that thses are the only corrupt companies out their or part of a very rare group? thats bs, thats just like saying oh 10 kids got caught smoking pot at my school that means only 10 kids smoke pot at my school. no thats not how it works, other companies haven't been caught yet, and may not make such stupid decisions, like martha stewart trading that much of her shares all in one big bang? wtf, she was asking to get caught.

now i'm saying all companies are corrupt (ok maybe not all but the majority) and by corrupt i mean by lieing and going through law loop holes. So i'm saying no maybe not all huge corperations hard just as corrupt as 11 billion, but they may be corrupt by a few million or a few hundred million.

and how many companies are there? don't u know that big corperations run the show? the little companies don't add up to much, and even then many big corperations own subsiduaries(spl?) which own smaller companies.


Not to mention, all of those expenses are unnecessary luxuries. There are probably a lot of people poorer than you that cant afford those luxuries. To them, even you are rich. How dare you waste money when there are poorer people in society that need your help!!

absolutly thats why i try to give to the less fortunate as much as i can, although i personally do not see a point in forcing myself to live in a run down part of town knowing that i have made a minute, if any change in the world.
if someone told me ok all of canada is going to be forced to give up this much money to help people out i'd do it for sure.

[Sketcher]

So in other words, the rich don't deserve that much money and the poor deserve more?

That's good for the rich who didn't work for their money and for the poor who are unable to work. But what about the rich who worked for that money? They deserve it and it should be up to them what to do with their money. And what about the poor who are able to work but are just too lazy to? They don't deserve my money. I don't feel sorry for those people.

[bergshadow]

Sketcher the vast majority of rich people are rich because they made themselves that way, not because they won the lottery or had a rich relative. Depending on what one counts as "rich", I'll bet the percentage of rich starting from scratch is not that big a majority - and very likely not a majority at all. (Do rich ex-husbands and wives count as rich relatives?)

shade I know there are more than 1 million millionaires in the US though. Most of those are probably self employed or high up in the food chain of a company and helped build it up to what it is today. I'll bet a higher percentage owe their initial stake or current wealth to fortuitous real estate appreciation and/or inherited wealth than to personal business success. There are tens of thousands of millionaires who became so through loss of their family farms and consequent sale of the acreage, for example. The many thousands of basically accidental millionaires who were, say, office help for early Microsoft or near-enough relations of a dead billionaire (every dead hundred-millionaire creates several ten-millionaires, who create several one-millionaires in turn, just by hiring competent money-management help) don't belong on the list. Neither do those who married well, nor those who made big bucks mismanaging (or even looting), rather than building up, a business ( a startlingly large percentage, by some accounts). And even the good clinic doctor with careful investments doesn't quite count, in your criteria.

The point isn't that building a business is not honest and admirable, nor that all rich people got their money by luck, just that building one's society around the assumption that rich people earned their money by contributing in proportion to their reward is completely unrealistic. So is assuming that even the truly self-made rich have already paid their way, and owe no further contribution to the system in which they applied themselves.

[Sketcher]

Sketcher Depending on what one counts as "rich", I'll bet the percentage of rich starting from scratch is not that big a majority - and very likely not a majority at all.

http://www.newyorkbodyscan.com/millionaires4.html

Looks like your wrong. 84% of the millionaires in America are self made millionaires.

[shade]

Blue25: Learn to spell. Maybe then people will take you seriously. While reading your post, all I see is "I am a middle schooler who has never even had a job, but I have a che shirt and read the geurilla news network."



bergshadow: You have some good points. In the real world I side with moderate regulation that maximizes consumer confidence while minimizing negative impact to business. No system is perfect. Catch people who break laws and make examples of them. Sure, some will get away. But responding with heavy handed regulation or redistribution does more harm than good in my opinion.

[Blue25]

Shade: oh boo who! learn to spell, sorry bud but i have more important things to do then spell check all my posts.

and good job continueing the debat.

[jn_powell]

good job continueing the debat.
Too easy drill sergeant.

[Kazimierz]

The poor need to be taxed less, and the rich need to be taxed more, along with corporations, and the loopholes need to be closed.

Or if not taxed more, atleast taxed fairly and not given these loopholes.

[shade]

Kaz: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

Read that before you ever talk about taxation fairness again. We are already a high redistribution society.

[Kazimierz]

Kaz: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

Read that before you ever talk about taxation fairness again. We are already a high redistribution society.

Is that before or after filing their returns and their write-offs? This also doesn't show corporations. The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans cant afford health insurance, many are very poor and living from paycheck to paycheck, while the top income earners get unnecessary tax breaks, and the large coroporation evade taxes (legally and not).

It's not really the tax system that i disagree with, it's more how the money is spent, and how the highest earners and corporations use loopholes to save money, while low income earners dont have time to, or cant afford to.

[bergshadow]

Sketcher Looks like your wrong. 84% of the millionaires in America are self made millionaires. Uh, not to nitpick or anything, but that was in 1892 (according to your link).

And it counted everyone who crossed the magic number during their lifetime - so these days anyone who inherited a 250K house and a 150K trust fund invested in T-bonds at 6%, and lived on the beach for 25 years re-investing the the interest on the fund while their house doubled in assessed value, would count as a "selfmade" millionaire. So would someone who inherited 500K, invested solidly at 8%, and lived off half the interest for 25 years while reinvesting the rest and doing not a lick of work otherwise.

Is it any wonder the number of US millionaires seems to be growing logistically, with the last 25 years being the quasi-exponential growth phase, while the US economy in general fizzles and stagnates and sheds production capacity?

[Sketcher]

Sketcher Uh, not to nitpick or anything, but that was in 1892 (according to your link).

Haha, I can't believe I missed that. I'll try to find another source that shows how it is today. Thanks for pointing that out.

EDIT: The great majority became millionaires recently, and most people say there was poverty in their family two generations ago, says Schervish.

* About 70 percent of them earn 80 percent of their household income, say Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko, authors of "The Millionaire Next Door."

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pd011999f.html

Several other sources I found said that 2/3 of all millionaires in America are self-made.

[shade]

Is that before or after filing their returns and their write-offs? This also doesn't show corporations. It is total effective which means bottom line after absolutely everything.

Yes, it does include corporations.

The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans cant afford health insurance, many are very poor and living from paycheck to paycheck, while the top income earners get unnecessary tax breaks, and the large coroporation evade taxes (legally and not).And the second half is dribble that is completely incorrect and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

It's not really the tax system that i disagree with, it's more how the money is spentFine, completely valid opinion.

and how the highest earners and corporations use loopholes to save moneyOn the large scale, no.

while low income earners dont have time to, or cant afford to.And only pay 0-10% in taxes.

[Kazimierz]

It is total effective which means bottom line after absolutely everything.

Yes, it does include corporations.

This data ends in 1997, before Bush came into office, so it cant be all that accurate at the moment. And it refers to households in all titles, so where are the corporations included?

And the second half is dribble that is completely incorrect and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

See: scandals. Are you trying to say that companies dont hire accountants to help them cut their taxes as much as possible? Why would you explain companies moving to foreign countries? Why would an American company need bank accounts in the Cayman Islands?

And only pay 0-10% in taxes.

And still cant afford their basic needs. So something is wrong.

[shade]

This data ends in 1997, before Bush came into office, so it cant be all that accurate at the moment. And it refers to households in all titles, so where are the corporations included?It ends in 2000 (came out in like 2002) and is in 1997 $ for inflation adjustment. If you read it more carefully you would know all of this.

Why would you explain companies moving to foreign countries?Lower labor costs.

Why would an American company need bank accounts in the Cayman Islands?Because they are probably an international company and their international revenues go to it. Taxation is determined by where the money is earned, not stored.

Are you trying to say that companies dont hire accountants to help them cut their taxes as much as possible? They hire accountants to make sure that the company does not pay more in taxes than the laws say they should.

Also, companies dont pay taxes. You do. Their money comes from revenue. Their revenue comes from YOU buying from them. They are then taxed. Where does it come from? YOU. Maybe if they werent taxed as much the poor could afford more due to lower prices? Maybe we could keep more jobs here because of better competition? Ask Nocturnal.

[Kazimierz]

Lower labor costs.

Lower taxes maybe? Also?

Because they are probably an international company and their international revenues go to it. Taxation is determined by where the money is earned, not stored.

But if they dont report all the earned, and put some in a bank with strict secrecy laws?

Also, companies dont pay taxes. You do. Their money comes from revenue. Their revenue comes from YOU buying from them. They are then taxed. Where does it come from? YOU. Maybe if they werent taxed as much the poor could afford more due to lower prices? Maybe we could keep more jobs here because of better competition? Ask Nocturnal.

They dont?

I'm probably digging myself into a hole arguing this shit with you. But I'm a socialist, and big business hurts the working man :bang: Move to Kazimierzia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=kazimierzia)

[Sketcher]

And what about the millions of working class Americans who work for the big companies? I know plenty of people who are making less than 50k/year but work for multimillion dollar companies.

Can you explain how big buisnesses hurt the working man? Because from what I've seen, the big companies are the reason why so many working men are working.

[Nocturnal]

I would like to see a chart that describes capital gains as well, that source of money is taxed much lower than income, and the highest quintile is the main beneficiary.

Under the current tax structure I would say that the numbers between the quintiles have moved closer. I'll look around the site later and see what I can see.

As far as the big business question, :D

Big business does help out society at large, economies of scale (ie it is cheaper to build one large power plant than 10 small ones) etc. increase the total goods available for purchase. Imagine how expensive a car would be if each company only made 2000 of them. They would probably cost about 10x as much.

However due to the differences between people's willingness to supply their labor and big business's demand for labor unfairness results in terms of wages. This inequity is addressed by labor unions, which give the company and workers equal bargaining power.

I have not looked into it all that much but corporations are probably taxed correctly, anything we do tax them will be spread to society at large eventually. The hope with corporate taxing is that companies will give less money to their (wealthy) stockholders.

Our original tax system did not consider money paid for labor as income, so only money that you made by investing, property ownership, etc. was actually taxed. Currently we have gone the other way, taxing capital gains at lower rates than labor incomes.

[shade]

Lower taxes maybe? Also?Absolutely. Businesses like customers go wherever they can get their job done with the lowest costs. For most businesses, labor is their biggest cost. If all things are equal though, lower taxes indeed will send some businesses elsewhere. Exactly why we need lower (or no) taxes on business in the US.

But if they dont report all the earned, and put some in a bank with strict secrecy laws?Then they breaking the law and there is nothing you can do about it other than punish when found.

I would like to see a chart that describes capital gains as well, that source of money is taxed much lower than income, and the highest quintile is the main beneficiary. Total effective includes everything, such as capital gains. And in fact capital gains is a huge tax depending on how long you have held the capital that received the gain. If its less than a year, it is usually about the same as your income tax bracket.

Under the current tax structure I would say that the numbers between the quintiles have moved closer.I wish I could find a newer version of this. As you probably know, these government websites dont exactly make information finding convenient. It took me days to find the link in my sig :shuffle:

The hope with corporate taxing is that companies will give less money to their (wealthy) stockholders.Or maybe diversity/hedge for tax revenue.

[zamphir66]

Question:

Is it right that a 40-hour work week times the minimum wage places someone well below the poverty line?

Even further: I have a friend who's a house manager for an assisted living firm, making 7.50 an hour. He lives in poverty. And yes, he is wise with his money: He sort of has to be since he never has any.

I know there's no easy solutions, but it just seems unfair.

[Sketcher]

Question:

Is it right that a 40-hour work week times the minimum wage places someone well below the poverty line?

Even further: I have a friend who's a house manager for an assisted living firm, making 7.50 an hour. He lives in poverty. And yes, he is wise with his money: He sort of has to be since he never has any.

I know there's no easy solutions, but it just seems unfair.
I'm a college student and I only work over the summer making minimum wage which is $7.10 here. That's fine for a student but nobody can live off of that. Which is exactly why I'm in college.

Most adults who make minimum wage do so because they havn't done anything for themselves to put themselves in a better posistion. That seems fair to me. And I know that this isn't the situation for all adult minimum wage workers but it is for most.

As for your question: It depends on why they are there. I don't think a high school drop out deserves a $20/hour job salary. But even if the reason why they were there was because they were laid off of their real job or other similar situations, people still get paid for doing the same work. It doesn't matter how old the person behind a grocery store cash register is. They're going to get paid minimum wage just the same.

[bergshadow]

Sketcher Several other sources I found said that 2/3 of all millionaires in America are self-made. But by what criteria? Again, does appreciation of inheritance, or fairly ordinary gain on inherited stakes, count? What role do we allow to parental support - say a free college education for a fairly mediocre student (as many successful businessmen were)?

shade Read that before you ever talk about taxation fairness again. We are already a high redistribution society. But those numbers count only adjusted income - the whole point of a tax loophole is to hide usable money as non-income - and they include in the income of the lower classes such items as the share of SS paid by the employer, and pension contributions not available for decades, while excluding from the income of the rich such items as money paid to mortgage interest and "unrealized" capital gains (nevertheless available as collateral, etc). And there is no correction for disposable income rather than "adjusted" gross, or differences in family size. And so forth. And even so they do not show much "redistribution" (27% federal is peanuts even if it were honest) - nor do they show much in the way of corporate taxation (a US corporation may be a legal person in its rights and priviledges, but it is not afflicted with a legal person's tax liabilities).
while low income earners dont have time to, or cant afford to.
And only pay 0-10% in taxes. You must be counting only Federal income tax. They pay 12% off the top in SS, for starters, and sales tax, various usage fees, high property taxes (renters pay more property tax than homeowners, for example) etc. In Minnesota, which has one of the more equitable tax distributions in the US, the percentage of income paid in taxes rises (slowly) until about 85K, and then drops steeply - the very rich pay a lower percentage than the very poor (according to the local paper's analysis). If disposable income is factored in, even the rise to 85K tends to flatten.
Also, companies dont pay taxes. You do. Their money comes from revenue. Their revenue comes from YOU buying from them. They are then taxed. Where does it come from? YOU. Or, equivalently: I don't pay taxes, the company I work for does. My money comes from the wages THEY pay me. Where does that money come from? THEM . Maybe if I weren't taxed as much I could afford to work for lower wages?

Heck, put our arguments together and nobody pays taxes.
Why would an American company need bank accounts in the Cayman Islands?
Because they are probably an international company and their international revenues go to it. That hardly explains bank accounts on Grand Cayman, or the 58 known offshore accounts maintained by Halliburton. Why don't they bank where they do business?

It isn't a matter of "going there", for the low labor cost or low taxes or whatever - the business hasn't "gone there" at all. Halliburton is still a US corporation, with all the advantages of that status (government contracts, access to legal and social infrastructure, military protection, unimpeded travel, etc.)

Offshore small island bank accounts are for hiding, and conducting hidden manuevers with, money obtained elsewhere. Period. No honest business has much use for one.

[Sketcher]

Sketcher But by what criteria? Again, does appreciation of inheritance, or fairly ordinary gain on inherited stakes, count? What role do we allow to parental support - say a free college education for a fairly mediocre student (as many successful businessmen were)?

Self-made = I did it. I made the right decisions. I started from the ground and worked my way up. I'm successful because of me. I worked for my money, I earned my money, I'm keeping my money.

[bergshadow]

Self-made = I did it. I made the right decisions. I started from the ground and worked my way up. I'm successful because of me. I worked for my money, I earned my money, I'm keeping my money. So there's what, a couple of dozen self-made millionaires in the US? Except for the "I'm keeping it" part, which would be considerably more - - - -

I think more realistic criteria would led to more realistic assessments of gratitude (and compensation) owed. Let's say we recognize the roads, schools, sewers, public health, police, property rights and other legal infrastructure, currency, environmental soundness, and military defense as givens: a person who has taken advantage of the opportunities offered by this social investment in their surroundings is "self-made". Then we have family relations: somewhere between "orphaned into the street at age ten" and "trust fund portfolio requiring professional management" we need to draw a line. Then marriage and other personal connections: is the widow of the selfmade also selfmade? The widower? The husband of the CEO's daughter, who was very successful in a job first acquired by nepotism? Are we excluding lottery winners? They would seem to be the most self-made of all, and owe the least to the help of others. Sure it was luck, but luck always plays some role - we aren't going to exclude the lucky otherwise, are we, as long as they did the right thing to win?

So how many self-made millionaires do we have, and what do they owe for the ante we fronted them - the currency, schools, roads, sewers, educated employees, defended borders, legal infrastructure, etc?

Is it OK if they just take all the money and say "see ya - good luck with the next bunch of kids"?

[shade]

while excluding from the income of the rich such items as money paid to mortgage interestMortgage interest is not tax deductible for rich people.

and "unrealized" capital gainsWhich are taxed once realized.

And so forth. And even so they do not show much "redistribution" It most certainly does. Take a look at the share of tax liabilities.

You must be counting only Federal income tax.Total federal taxes yes.

They pay 12% off the top in SS, for startersAnd receive the most back in other benefits. LOOK AT THE CBO DOCUMENT AND READ IT KTHX

and sales tax, various usage fees, high property taxes LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL. We arent talking about that now are we? I cant influence what happens in your state. However I can influence what happens federally (see: electing congress/pres)

My money comes from the wages THEY pay me.Which comes from revenue that is not necessarily originating from within the country. The only gurantee is that the income you receive is received here. That is where the circle ends.

[Sketcher]

So there's what, a couple of dozen self-made millionaires in the US?

Nope, try reading my link again. 2/3 of all American millionaires according to the definition I posted above that you quoted, are self made. Seems to me you just don't want to admit it.

[bergshadow]

shade And receive the most back in other benefits. LOOK AT THE CBO DOCUMENT AND READ IT KTHX Yeah, I did. They are lumping the recipients of SS benefits in with the contributors, averaging money received by the poor from other, different poor people as offsetting benefits. They are counting non-discretionary benefits received from the Feds as income. They are ignoring any reasonable correction for "disposable" or "discretionary" expenditures. Their correction for household membership is misleading. They are ignoring the fact that the fed system works in conjunction with local systems (direct money transferred to local taxing authorities) and thus means little outside of that context - so mentions of offsetting, regressive local taxation are completely relevant, especially in a thread devoted to the implications of offshore money sequestration, which hides rich people's money from the local as well as the Fed.

You are then using that number to claim that poor people pay 0-10% of their income in federal level taxation, rich people pay almost 30%, and we live therefore in a "highly redistributive" federal system. I think that's BS, and not because I can't read your table.

And after making those observations about the origin of the numbers, which are debatable in their implications granted, I went on to observe that 10% vs 30% is not "highly redistributive" anyway, even accepting those bogus numbers at some kind of face value . 2% to 60%, now, would be getting into debates about rich people abused, somehow. 10 to 30 is probably not even flat.

Sketcher
Nope, try reading my link again. 2/3 of all American millionaires according to the definition I posted above that you quoted, are self made. Well, according to the definition you posted above, I never heard of single self-made millionaire. I have a hard time thinking of even a theoretical qualifier - maybe someone who found gold by sheer luck? Certainly the famous Bill Gates doesn't qualify, or Sam Walton, or the two or three I know personally (who I think worked hard and deserve their rewards). Your definition is very restrictive.

I was attempting to broaden it a bit, so deserving strivers would fit, is all. You're never going to get to 50% in the US, of course, given the kind of inheritance laws and educational system we have in our country (there's a lot of people born on third base) but a reasonable 5% or 10% might be achievable if you loosen your criteria a bit.

[Sketcher]

Sketcher Well, according to the definition you posted above, I never heard of single self-made millionaire. I have a hard time thinking of even a theoretical qualifier - maybe someone who found gold by sheer luck? Certainly the famous Bill Gates doesn't qualify, or Sam Walton, or the two or three I know personally (who I think worked hard and deserve their rewards). Your definition is very restrictive.
I admit, my definition isn't exact. But self-made is pretty self explanitory. Bill Gates didn't inherit his money. He didn't get his job because he knew someone in the buisness. No rich relitives helped him start up his buisness. He worked from the ground up and earned his money. He's self made. He's rich because HE made himself rich. No one else. That's self made. 2/3rds of all millioniars in the US made themselves rich. Hell, eBaum is a self made millionaire.

[Viet Era Marine]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,1446127,00.html

don't you love it they tax you poor while the rich are hiding their money


Hey Dead,

Take a peek:

www.worldcapitalforum.com/privplacprog.html

It's YOUR OWN Governments and Banks that are
offering to "Shelter" these folks money.

Strange that they offer these "Private Placements"
then can turn around and bitch about lost Tax Revenue.

Regards,
VEM

[shade]

I went on to observe that 10% vs 30% is not "highly redistributive" anyway, even accepting those bogus numbers at some kind of face value Again, read the damn document. Look at the share of liabilities

Find this part:
Lowest Quintile 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9
Second Quintile 6.9 6.8 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.2
Middle Quintile 12.9 13.0 13.0 13.0 12.2 12.3 12.5 11.8 11.4 10.7 10.4
Fourth Quintile 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.3 20.6 20.2 20.8 20.2 19.2 18.1 18.1
Highest Quintile 57.1 56.4 56.9 56.4 58.5 59.0 58.3 60.5 62.5 64.7 65.4

It shows the lowest 40% paying for 6.1% of tax revenue and the highest 60% paying 93.9%. That is the redistribution. When you have a progressive income tax system not only do the rich pay a higher % of their income, but because their income is higher, the actual $ amount is a lot a more. Thus, while everyone receives the same military/legal protection, and the poor receive more help from various programs, the poor only pay for 6.1% of that cost.

That is called redistribution.

[Viet Era Marine]

Again, read the damn document. Look at the share of liabilities

Find this part:
Lowest Quintile 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9
Second Quintile 6.9 6.8 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.2
Middle Quintile 12.9 13.0 13.0 13.0 12.2 12.3 12.5 11.8 11.4 10.7 10.4
Fourth Quintile 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.3 20.6 20.2 20.8 20.2 19.2 18.1 18.1
Highest Quintile 57.1 56.4 56.9 56.4 58.5 59.0 58.3 60.5 62.5 64.7 65.4

It shows the lowest 40% paying for 6.1% of tax revenue and the highest 60% paying 93.9%. That is the redistribution. When you have a progressive income tax system not only do the rich pay a higher % of their income, but because their income is higher, the actual $ amount is a lot a more. Thus, while everyone receives the same military/legal protection, and the poor receive more help from various programs, the poor only pay for 6.1% of that cost.

That is called redistribution.

Everyone chime in now; "BINGO"!!

Strange how folks can "Not get the Point" even
with the data staring them in the face.

Good job Shade!

Regards,
VEM

[bergshadow]

Sketcher
I admit, my definition isn't exact. But self-made is pretty self explanitory. No it isn't. It's very confused. I tried to clarify matters a bit, and make the term useful, but if you are going to insist that 2/3 of the millionaires are "selfmade" it's your responsibility to tell us what possible meaning "self-made" could have that would produce such a number. Your definition, interpreted using the normal English meanings of the words you used, won't come close - and will certainly exclude Mr. Gates, who had plenty of boost from public infrastructure and private support in his early goings and to this day. I would want to include him as well, and I offered some qualifications to your definition. I don't know why you reject them, unless it's because they of course imply that even the self-made tycoons owe a lot to their society and neighborhood.

shade
It shows the lowest 40% paying for 6.1% of tax revenue and the highest 60% paying 93.9%. That is the redistribution. That isn't redistribution at all. It's a side effect of a lopsided distribution in the first place. If you ran such stats in Pharoah's Egypt, you'd have the Pharoah and his minions paying 100% of the federal tax, and the slaves paying 0% - why? Because Pharoah's got all the money. Would that make such tax "redistributive"? No. The distribution of discretionary income remains the same, the distribution of wealth remains the same. Nothing's been redistributed. The Pharoah's paying for the government and its programs, is all.
Thus, while everyone receives the same military/legal protection, and the poor receive more help from various programs, Oh c'mon. The wealthy receive far more from government than the poor. Their very forms of wealth are creations of government (private property, currency, copyright, patent, contract, etc etc etc ) while their lives and business activities make far more use of government services (airports, treaties, shipping lanes, roads, communication standards, public research and regulatory bodies, mineral and water rights, etc etc etc). The military and police consist of low income people defending the wealth of the rich, by and large. Mickey Mouse welfare handouts, often accompanied by work requirements (benefitting whom? why of course - those who need cheap labor), don't begin to cover even the juicy cost-plus defense contracts, let alone the debt service and infrastructure provisions.

[daveo the great]

Everyone chime in now; "BINGO"!!

Strange how folks can "Not get the Point" even
with the data staring them in the face.

Good job Shade!

Regards,
VEM

hey, i didnt know you were a cheerleeder. how about if you contribute something to this thread, and keep ass-kissing to pms or reps?

its not like the 90% of taxes paid by the richest, are going into the pockets of the poor, they are going into services provided by the government. why should the rich pay most of it, because they CAN. see the example i posted a little while ago in this thread. selfmade millioniares are extremely rare, the american dream is a falsity that convinces poor people that it is their fault that they are poor, and thusly deserve the problems associated. well, people dont choose to be born into the ghetto, or be randomly selected for a layoff. is it their fault they had to drop out of college to take care of a sick mother, etc? why should a poor man have the same tax weight on his shoulders as a rich man, when the rich man can afford 10x the weight, and still live 10x as luxuirously.

[shade]

why should the rich pay most of it, because they CAN.I agree. That is called reality.

Bergshadow, what is redistribution if not one side paying much more than another side, while receiving less services?

If it costs $100 to feed 10 people and 6 people pay $93 dollars total while 4 people pay $7 total for the same meal, what is that?

I look forward to you wiggling around this straight forward, blunt, and directly to the point question.

[dead]

I agree. That is called reality.

Bergshadow, what is redistribution if not one side paying much more than another side, while receiving less services?

If it costs $100 to feed 10 people and 6 people pay $93 dollars total while 4 people pay $7 total for the same meal, what is that?

I look forward to you wiggling around this straight forward, blunt, and directly to the point question.
that depends on how much they earn if they earn all the same amount of money that's unfair but if some off them earn 100*as much as the others that seems fair.
and the way it's now handled is not that the rich pay the most amount of money it it's the middle class.

[Kazimierz]

I agree. That is called reality.

Bergshadow, what is redistribution if not one side paying much more than another side, while receiving less services?

If it costs $100 to feed 10 people and 6 people pay $93 dollars total while 4 people pay $7 total for the same meal, what is that?

I look forward to you wiggling around this straight forward, blunt, and directly to the point question.

Because it is our responsibility as human beings with morals and ethics to look help those less fortunate than us.

Just because you make more than another person doesnt mean that you should have access to a decent meal, while the other person doesnt.

[bergshadow]

shade Bergshadow, what is redistribution if not one side paying much more than another side, while receiving less services?

If it costs $100 to feed 10 people and 6 people pay $93 dollars total while 4 people pay $7 total for the same meal, what is that?

I look forward to you wiggling around this straight forward, blunt, and directly to the point question. Where do you get the absurd and childish notion that the rich receive less government service than the poor? Every dollar in their pockets is one more government service, every contract with a stranger they collect payment on, every time they walk out "their" front doors without an armed guard. Do you think money grows on trees? Legal infrastructure is left by Santa? Educated employees are brought by the stork?

Do you think individual people through simple, hard, intelligent work can establish property rights? It takes the establishment of government - political action - to do that. The wealthy have more property - hence they are receiving more of that service, and benefitting more by it.

The man who does not own his home is receiving less service of his government thereby. The man whose business takes him among strangers - even foreigners - is receiving more. The man whose business requires currency, roads, bulk transport of goods, availability of educated employees, making and enforcing of complex agreements stretching over decades and continents, much, much more. Surely this is obvious?

Do I have to match grammar school vignettes? OK: If someone belonging to a tool coop rents a shovel to dig a small hole, and sharpens it himself and cleans it up afterwards, while another rents a backhoe to dig a pit, and requires all maintenance to be done by shovel man, who should pay the most rent?

And if backhoe man comes around whining about how he did all that work, more work than shovel man, and higher skilled work too, that he had the foresight to train for, should we not pat him on the back and congratulate him on his fine pit and demonstrated ability, and charge him the regular rent anyway? It isn't our fault he needs such a big hole, after all (it's something of an inconvenience for us, actually).

Or historical synopsis? One key to American industry was the people who actually supplied government (governed behavior) getting control of it, so they could charge rent. That provided some semblance of market feedback for the use of it - which we moderns are frittering away.

[shade]

Do you think money grows on trees?Do you think value comes from the government? Sorry friend, your post is dribble. Your mind is off in an alternate reality.

[bergshadow]

shade Do you think value comes from the government? No. Sorry friend, your post is dribble. Your mind is off in an alternate reality. It's called the United States of America, where the currency, laws, treaties, public infrastructure, and many other necessary services of a modern industrial economy are provided by a government established among the adult citizens by themselves. It isn't a bad reality, all in all - check it out some time.

[shade]

where the currencyAnd you state value doesnt come from the government.

laws, treaties, public infrastructureBenefit everyone equally.

and many other necessary services of a modern industrial economy Often benefit the poor the most when government is involved because the so called rich can afford it privately.

[Chewy]

Benefit everyone equally.
I don't buy that too much but if anything they display a huge flaw in true Free Enterprise. If free enterprise is about competition then trade barriers would irrelevant.

[shade]

Were talking about benefits to american citizens from the government. For some reason bergshadow is trying to say that someone who pays tens of thousands of dollars in taxes receives more benefits from the government than a poor person.

[Viet Era Marine]

hey, i didnt know you were a cheerleeder. how about if you contribute something to this thread, and keep ass-kissing to pms or reps?

its not like the 90% of taxes paid by the richest, are going into the pockets of the poor, they are going into services provided by the government. why should the rich pay most of it, because they CAN. see the example i posted a little while ago in this thread. selfmade millioniares are extremely rare, the american dream is a falsity that convinces poor people that it is their fault that they are poor, and thusly deserve the problems associated. well, people dont choose to be born into the ghetto, or be randomly selected for a layoff. is it their fault they had to drop out of college to take care of a sick mother, etc? why should a poor man have the same tax weight on his shoulders as a rich man, when the rich man can afford 10x the weight, and still live 10x as luxuirously.

When someone post an item that is "Right on the Head", I will
acknowledge it. That by no means makes me a "cheerleader.
So fork off.

BTW: What world do you live in?
I've bolded your text I'm responding to.
WTF are you talking about here:

"why should a poor man have the same tax weight
on his shoulders as a rich man"

Just go back and read the CBO figures for % of Taxes
paid by income bracket. Those "Rich" folks you love to hate,
pay damn near 98% of ALL TAXES PAID BY EVERYONE!
Did you get the point that time?

Of course we could up the Tax rate on them to the point that
they would have no choice but to move themselves and their
assets to another country.

Why is it that you "Redistribute The Wealth" folks never get the
point? If you Tax people beyond about 43% of income, THEY WILL
LEAVE!!

Regards,
VEM

[bergshadow]

shade where the currency
And you state value doesnt come from the government. ? Can I possibly be dealing with an adult who cannot distinguish "currency" and "value"? Do you really believe the government prints value when it prints money? That the federal bank safeguards a value system?

laws, treaties, public infrastructure
Benefit everyone equally. !? Nonsense. Maybe you typed hastily. Take a minute or two and contemplate the comparative benefits received by crack whores and oil company execs from the careful delineation of mineral property rights off the continental shelf. Or pick any form of legal property, including money itself, and tell me how those who possess less or none benefit equally with those who possess lots.
and many other necessary services of a modern industrial economy
Often benefit the poor the most when government is involved because the so called rich can afford it privately. If they can establish a private currency, they're not just "so-called" rich. If they used the government's currency and laws and so forth to get enough benefit to afford luxury private schools, say, then they have gained quite a bit from this bulldozer they rented, no? The fee should be large as well.

I swear you sound as though you think a modern industrial market economy is some kind of naturally occurring thing, mysteriously come into existence and there for anyone to use, and government is some kind of parasite on it.

[daveo the great]

When someone post an item that is "Right on the Head", I will
acknowledge it. That by no means makes me a "cheerleader.

no, but not adding anything else to the discussion does. i dont know, maybe you were just simply spamming.

"why should a poor man have the same tax weight
on his shoulders as a rich man"

Just go back and read the CBO figures for % of Taxes
paid by income bracket. Those "Rich" folks you love to hate,
pay damn near 98% of ALL TAXES PAID BY EVERYONE!
Did you get the point that time?

um when i said that i thought it "in proportion" was understood. and by the last figures shade posted, the top 60% payed around 94%. hmm.... that means that mostly the middle class (which is like 50k to 150k a year) are paying a overly substantial ammount. the highest 20% which would be, i assume, 150k all the way to bill gates' several billion, pay only 65%.

yes the rich do pay the majority of taxes, but they also hold the majority of the money. the % of each person's income taxed is the wieght on their shoulders, the rich should have a societal obligation to take the weight. two people have a meal together at a resturant, the rich one should take care of most of the bill, metaphorically, speaking of course, i know that is not the real situation. (bergshadow is arguing that in fact the poor man got a sandwich and water, while the rich one had a 5 course meal with wine.)


Of course we could up the Tax rate on them to the point that
they would have no choice but to move themselves and their
assets to another country.

Why is it that you "Redistribute The Wealth" folks never get the
point? If you Tax people beyond about 43% of income, THEY WILL
LEAVE!!

Regards,
VEM


um, im not arguing that.... i just want the bush tax cuts out.

[shade]

Do you really believe the government prints value when it prints money? Of course I dont. Im not the wrong one on this conversation. You list it as a huge benefit (and it is) but the existence of currency doesnt help any individual more than another, because value is what matters. Especially in the case of the super rich, who have huge amounts of real assets.

!? Nonsense. Maybe you typed hastily.Give me a break. Check your damn deed if you want mineral rights. I know to do this, and its only from my public education.

If they used the government's currency and laws and so forth to get enough benefit to afford luxury private schools, say, then they have gained quite a bit from this bulldozer they rented, no? Oh my GOD. Read. Go up and look at what im referring to. Try to think. Not too hard though. The benefits [I]afforded by an industrial economy[I] such as a CAR, HOUSE, TV, etc. These are not provided by the government. I am talking about the difference in what the government directly spends money on to benefit the rich and the poor. YOU CAN NOT IN GOOD CONCIENCE STATE THAT MORE IS SPENT ON THE RICH THAN THE POOR BY THE GOVERNMENT.

[bergshadow]

shade You list it as a huge benefit (and it is) but the existence of currency doesnt help any individual more than another, because value is what matters. Especially in the case of the super rich, who have huge amounts of real assets. So you agree the superrich take much greater advantage of other government services as well (such as the establishment of an abstraction like "copyright" and "patent" as an actual asset capable of being traded, used as collateral, leased to strangers on the other side of the planet, etc). I believe that has been my most often repeated assertion.
Give me a break. Check your damn deed if you want mineral rights. I know to do this, and its only from my public education. Without the legal structure and coercive backing of a government, your deed is a piece of paper with funny little marks on it. It's not even good asswipe (too scratchy). And oil prospecting "rights" on the continental shelf are not even that. If the government fails to charge users of services (those who use more currency, those who use more legal structure and services, etc) somewhat in proportion to their use (t least as measured by benefit gained), the market distortion will be severe. They did teach you about the "tragedy of the commons" and other types of failed, distorted markets, in your sophisticated econ classes, no?

YOU CAN NOT IN GOOD CONCIENCE STATE THAT MORE IS SPENT ON THE RICH THAN THE POOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. In the first place, I don't restrict "service provided" to "money directly spent". If someone gives me use of a backhoe and also pays for my meal, the use of the backhoe counts for something. The infrastructure (of all kinds) provided by government and used mainly by the rich is hugely beneficial, mainly to them.

In the second place, I do (in excellent conscience) state that most of the money spent by the government is spent on the comparatively wealthy. Most of the military and law enforcement expenditures, for starters. The vast majority of the interest paid on the debt. Most physical infrastructure. Most SS payouts. Much if not most of the formal education support. That's a majority right there, before even beginning to parse the actual destinations of welfare and subsidy monies (agribusiness, not farmers, pharmaceutical companies, not sick people, airline execs, not travelers, etc). I don't begrudge all of it. Supporting competent government to establish the possibility of becoming wealthy for those with drive and ability seems a good thing, in general. But let's not pretend that government is parasitic on those who are successful, or that charging them with the support of that government is somehow "redistributive".

[shade]

I am done playing the tangent game.

[bergshadow]

shade I am done playing the tangent game. Back to the point, then: every dollar hiddin from the tax man in an offshore account is one more embezzlement. The rich who dishonor their obligations and hide their crimes in this way are scum. The legality of the setup is an example of corruption. And the whole shebang could be demolished overnight by honest governmental representation of the American citizen.

There's nothing inevitable or unstoppable about it.

[Kazimierz]

shade Back to the point, then: every dollar hiddin from the tax man in an offshore account is one more embezzlement. The rich who dishonor their obligations and hide their crimes in this way are scum. The legality of the setup is an example of corruption. And the whole shebang could be demolished overnight by honest governmental representation of the American citizen.

There's nothing inevitable or unstoppable about it.

Big business gets officials elected. Officials help them out. It's true, it happens, it affects people's decisions on law and policies, etc. It's legal corruption, and it needs to stop. It's real, and anyone who disagrees is living in denial.

[shade]

If someone offered you a $1 million a year "consulting" or "lobbying" job after your term is up... would you honestly say no? Maybe the legislation they want has some merit... and some little line in it that gives them an advantage. You figure it wont really hurt anyone, and maybe it wont other than giving someone a competitive advantage. Or maybe they simply dont want any changes to be made.

Its fair to say most would not say no to that. I cant remember his name, but there is a Democrat house rep (I want to say from NJ) who chose to stay in the social security system even though he could retire with $150k per year from the porky retirement plan that our congress gave themselves. There are very few people like that who actually get elected. I think I saw him on Hannity and Colmes some time. I completely disagreed with 90% of what he said, but when he pointed out that he chose to stay in social security, he gained HUGE amounts of respect from me. I just wish I could remember his name.