• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deku said:
Alternatively, Obama could raise the taxes on the wealthiest 5% another 20 points to Nixon era levels.

Take your pick.
Actually, I like this 50% marginal tax rate idea on the very wealthy. They really should do that instead of a national sales tax that punishes the poor for spending what little they have.

Dude, no. Here is the problem, first what is considered the very wealthy? In Britain, from what I heard they raised the taxes to 50%+ on those making £150,000 a year. Here in the states that would be suicide. Realize that at a certain point you can no longer tax the rich and expect them to continue spending. I have no problem with the very rich (whatever that is) to be at 30-35% but more than that I have a problem with and I am definitely not even in that category.
 

xnipx

Member
so would u have had a problem with the tax rate of every president before ronald reagan? taxing the shit out of the wealthy is as american as apple pie before reagan thought trickle down economics would really work :lol
 

mAcOdIn

Member
xnipx said:
so would u have had a problem with the tax rate of every president before ronald reagan? taxing the shit out of the wealthy is as american as apple pie before reagan thought trickle down economics would really work :lol
Yeah, yeah and slavery was as American as apple pie until some idiot thought that freedom would work. The point of this argument is?
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
mAcOdIn said:
Yeah, yeah and slavery was as American as apple pie until some idiot thought that freedom would work. The point of this argument is?
Slavery ended quite some time ago and appears dead in this country. Jury's still out on ever decreasing marginal tax rates for the rich.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
LovingSteam said:
Dude, no. Here is the problem, first what is considered the very wealthy? In Britain, from what I heard they raised the taxes to 50%+ on those making £150,000 a year. Here in the states that would be suicide. Realize that at a certain point you can no longer tax the rich and expect them to continue spending. I have no problem with the very rich (whatever that is) to be at 30-35% but more than that I have a problem with and I am definitely not even in that category.

That would affect about 2% of households in the US, and generate a tremendous amount of income for the government. Bear in mind that the top tax bracket has plunged in recent decades, and partly as a result the share of wealth the top 2% have has skyrocketed. The notion that a tax on the very wealthy would undermine the economy, when it's middle class consumer spending that drives the bulk of it, is silly.

It's also worth mentioning that for all the debate about how to pay for healthcare reform, Obama proposed several ways to do so which would cause minimal pain in his budget. Congress rejected all of them. They are continuing with the spending proposals, of course.

Really, there's a host of ways to pay for healthcare reform and close the deficit. One of which is letting the new tax cut expire in two years. It might be political poison, but I do think we've cut taxes too much at this point, across the board. We've got too many problems to fix, and not enough money to fix them. So all this dabbling around the edges - a soda tax - we need some comprehensive tax reforms. Which means we should all pay slightly more, with the wealthy going up a bit higher.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
scorcho said:
Slavery ended quite some time ago and appears dead in this country. Jury's still out on ever decreasing marginal tax rates for the rich.
Not saying they have to lower taxes on the rich or that they can't raise them a bit, just that because something was done in the past doesn't mean, "hey that's good!"
 

Jonm1010

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Yeah, yeah and slavery was as American as apple pie until some idiot thought that freedom would work. The point of this argument is?
Yea except that releasing of the slaves was actually a net benefit in the long run, cant say the same for trickle down economics or the ridiculously low tax rates on businesses or the rich.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Jonm1010 said:
Yea except that releasing of the slaves was actually a net benefit in the long run, cant say the same for trickle down economics or the ridiculously low tax rates on businesses or the rich.
Caveat that with 'we must cut spending!', which Republicans have continuously failed to do while in office the last two decades.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Yea except that releasing of the slaves was actually a net benefit in the long run, cant say the same for trickle down economics or the ridiculously low tax rates on businesses or the rich.
Well actually there are but since you don't benefit directly from it you act as it doesn't exist.

There's a balance to be maintained here, just because you could take 50% of a man's income past some magical number doesn't mean you should. You're right though, YOU do not benefit when some rich guy has a 35% income tax as opposed to a 50%.

edit: Further businesses did benefit. Now further this, if businesses were stingy with their money under a lower tax rate are they going to be philanthropists with a higher tax rate?

I think there wasn't enough strings attached but you guys seem to think it should go to the government to be used.
 
GhaleonEB said:
That would affect about 2% of households in the US, and generate a tremendous amount of income for the government. Bear in mind that the top tax bracket has plunged in recent decades, and partly as a result the share of wealth the top 2% have has skyrocketed. The notion that a tax on the very wealthy would undermine the economy, when it's middle class consumer spending that drives the bulk of it, is silly.

It's also worth mentioning that for all the debate about how to pay for healthcare reform, Obama proposed several ways to do so which would cause minimal pain in his budget. Congress rejected all of them. They are continuing with the spending proposals, of course.

Really, there's a host of ways to pay for healthcare reform and close the deficit. One of which is letting the new tax cut expire in two years. It might be political poison, but I do think we've cut taxes too much at this point, across the board. We've got too many problems to fix, and not enough money to fix them. So all this dabbling around the edges - a soda tax - we need some comprehensive tax reforms. Which means we should all pay slightly more, with the wealthy going up a bit higher.

And this is where we differ. I don't believe its the governments responsibility to pay for A, B, C, and D. I believe that all of us have an opportunity to be happy but not a guarantee. Remember, its the pursuit of happiness that is a human right, not happiness itself. Look at the Supreme Court nominee. She worked her self through college and is successful. I believe smaller govt is better. Give people the tools to be successful but don't guarantee their success/happiness. There are many people who believe its not moral to have people fail, that we as a country must make sure each and everyone has the same success stories, same level of education, same income, same size of house, etc... Let the govt do what its there to do, nothing more.
 
LovingSteam said:
And this is where we differ. I don't believe its the governments responsibility to pay for A, B, C, and D. I believe that all of us have an opportunity to be happy but not a guarantee. Remember, its the pursuit of happiness that is a human right, not happiness itself. Look at the Supreme Court nominee. She worked her self through college and is successful. I believe smaller govt is better. Give people the tools to be successful but don't guarantee their success/happiness. There are many people who believe its not moral to have people fail, that we as a country must make sure each and everyone has the same success stories, same level of education, same income, same size of house, etc... Let the govt do what its there to do, nothing more.
What about problems that can only be fixed through government intervention? Like health-care.
 
Dax01 said:
What about problems that can only be fixed through government intervention? Like health-care.

I don't believe that health care can only be fixed through govt intervention though. I also don't believe we should require everyone to be insured like Hillary wanted to do. I do believe that there must be a way to fix the problem without raising taxes and I was listening to the radio and there are a few Repubs that have an idea. Not to say it will or won't work but there are a few who realize health care needs fixing and are trying to come up with a way to do so without getting the govt involved.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PantherLotus said:
Lest We Forget



:lol

NO, NOT EMPATHY!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

gingie1.jpg


And this is what I hate most about the media. Now how many people on TV will repeat this finding?
 

Jonm1010

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Well actually there are but since you don't benefit directly from it you act as it doesn't exist.

There's a balance to be maintained here, just because you could take 50% of a man's income past some magical number doesn't mean you should. You're right though, YOU do not benefit when some rich guy has a 35% income tax as opposed to a 50%.

edit: Further businesses did benefit. Now further this, if businesses were stingy with their money under a lower tax rate are they going to be philanthropists with a higher tax rate?

I think there wasn't enough strings attached but you guys seem to think it should go to the government to be used.

When you weigh the benefits and ignore the costs, pretty much anything can be made to look good.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
There are many people who believe its not moral to have people fail, that we as a country must make sure each and everyone has the same success stories, same level of education, same income, same size of house, etc... Let the govt do what its there to do, nothing more.
Universal health care, Social security, unemployment benefits and disability payments doesn't equate to individual 'happiness.' It also doesn't lead to everyone living in socialist communes where everything is the same.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I don't believe that health care can only be fixed through govt intervention though. I also don't believe we should require everyone to be insured like Hillary wanted to do. I do believe that there must be a way to fix the problem without raising taxes and I was listening to the radio and there are a few Repubs that have an idea. Not to say it will or won't work but there are a few who realize health care needs fixing and are trying to come up with a way to do so without getting the govt involved.

Every other industrialized nation disagrees with you.
 

syllogism

Member
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
Seems like a person with the richness of his experience will make a different decision than a person who does not

Alito
 

demifiend

Member
PantherLotus said:
Scraping The Bottom of Barrel
So far the criticisms of Sonia Sotomayor are much more revealing about her conservative critics than they are about her. I flagged Sen. Inhofe's statement yesterday. Here are some new morsels from the right:

National Review Online's Mark Krikorian: "Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English... and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to."

Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl -- that is, only by having a black president, an Hispanic justice, a female secretary of State, and Bozo the Clown as vice president will the United States become a true 'vanguard of societal ideas and changes.'"

Meanwhile, MSNBC's Monica Novotny just flayed Curt Levey, one of the anti-Sotomayor talking heads a few minutes ago (video shortly). Levey foundered around until he grasped ahold of the Jeffrey Rosen TNR piece on Sotomayor that, curiously, Rosen hasn't been anywhere on TV to defend.

--David Kurtz​


:eek:

Since nobody can be counted on for accountability around here, here's Krikorian's piece about Sotomayor's last name.

It Sticks in My Craw [Mark Krikorian]

Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pronunciation of Judge Sotomayor's name (and a couple griped about the whole Latina/Latino thing - English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?). But a couple said we should just pronounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, including one who pronounces her name "freed" even though it's spelled "fried," like fried rice. (I think Cathy Seipp of blessed memory did the reverse - "sipe" instead of "seep.") Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.

For instance, in Armenian, the emphasis is on the second syllable in my surname, just as in English, but it has three syllables, not four (the "ian" is one syllable) - but that's not how you'd say it in English (the "ian" means the same thing as in English - think Washingtonian or Jeffersonian). Likewise in Russian, you put the emphasis in my name on the final syllable and turn the "o" into a schwa, and they're free to do so because that's the way it works in their language. And should we put Asian surnames first in English just because that's the way they do it in Asia? When speaking of people in Asia, okay, but not people of Asian origin here, where Mao Tse-tung would properly have been changed to Tse-tung Mao. Likewise with the Mexican practice of including your mother's maiden name as your last name, after your father's surname.

This may seem like carping, but it's not. Part of our success in assimilation has been to leave whole areas of culture up to the individual, so that newcomers have whatever cuisine or religion or so on they want, limiting the demand for conformity to a smaller field than most other places would. But one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options -- the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.

As for Goldfarb's quote, beyond zeroing in on the word HISPANIC, it sounds like typical sardonic criticism to me.
 
scorcho said:
Universal health care, Social security, unemployment benefits and disability payments doesn't equate to individual 'happiness.' It also doesn't lead to everyone living in socialist communes where everything is the same.

However it does further stretch the US govt deeper and deeper, raising more taxes. People act as though if you are not for govt sponsored universal health care than you are not for a fix to the health care fiasco itself. Not saying you are doing that but I have met a few who do. Look, I know health care needs to be fixed (I will be without it in 5 days) but I am against making the govt any bigger than it already is. The way that the govt is increasing in power is simply not the way it was designed to be. This has been going on for decades and both parties are equally to blame in my opinion, al be it in different ways.
 

gcubed

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Every other industrialized nation disagrees with you.

yeah but if we were like every other industrialized nation on that regard we'd be screwed, people would be healthier and would live longer lives, which would put more of a strain on social security, we cant have it both ways! We need people to die off younger, not live longer
 
Jonm1010 said:
Every other industrialized nation disagrees with you.

It wouldn't be the first time an "industrialized nation" disagrees with an American on issues of govt responsibility. Frankly I take comfort in that many nations would disagree with me since I disagree with them on many issues as well. Again, there are people who are grappling with this issue. I don't believe we should do something just to do it which is why I was against the TARP and Stimulus package.

We were told every day how if we didn't bail out this company and that company the end of the world would have come. We were told we had to spend billions and billions on GM to stop bankruptcy (alot of good that did). The govt is in the scare business now. If the govt tells me "ACT NOW ACT NOW" it gives me even more reason to pause.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
syllogism said:
Seems like a person with the richness of his experience will make a different decision than a person who does not

Alito


He didn't really say that did he?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
demifiend said:
Since nobody can be counted on for accountability around here, here's Krikorian's piece about Sotomayor's last name.



As for Goldfarb's quote, beyond zeroing in on the word HISPANIC, it sounds like typical sardonic criticism to me.


This part is complete bullshit.

This may seem like carping, but it's not. Part of our success in assimilation has been to leave whole areas of culture up to the individual, so that newcomers have whatever cuisine or religion or so on they want, limiting the demand for conformity to a smaller field than most other places would. But one of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that's not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options -- the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be.

That's not the America I live in. We are a multicultural land. And if you want to pronounce your name in it's native tongue then be my guess. Nobody in America will force you to adopt the "American" version of that name.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
However it does further stretch the US govt deeper and deeper, raising more taxes. People act as though if you are not for govt sponsored universal health care than you are not for a fix to the health care fiasco itself. Not saying you are doing that but I have met a few who do. Look, I know health care needs to be fixed (I will be without it in 5 days) but I am against making the govt any bigger than it already is. The way that the govt is increasing in power is simply not the way it was designed to be. This has been going on for decades and both parties are equally to blame in my opinion, al be it in different ways.
Listen, healthcare is costing money whether it is through you paying a private company or through your taxes. The only question should be what system provides the highest quality of care, covers the most people and does it the most efficiently?

And the answer has basically been had, single payer system - public insurance, private delivery.

Now there are other systems that function without having a single payer system (Japan, Switzerland among others) but due to economies of scale, the price for that insurance is always going to be slightly higher than a properly done single payer system.

Personally i think the most feasible plan with the least amount disruption to the system as a whole is to go the Switzerland route.
 
The transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the rich has been HUGE over the past 3 decades. It's just rediculous. Giving the rich more tax cuts won't solve anything, and I laugh really hard when Republicans want to cut the marginal tax rate to 25% for the rich. Our country haven't seen taxes so low for the rich since the 20s/30s. The problem is that the rich evade taxes by capital gains tax and loopholes. Closing loopholes is a start and I hope Obama comes through.

BTW, raising taxes by three freaking cent isn't going to hurt the rich.
 

gcubed

Member
LovingSteam said:
It wouldn't be the first time an "industrialized nation" disagrees with an American on issues of govt responsibility. Frankly I take comfort in that many nations would disagree with me since I disagree with them on many issues as well. Again, there are people who are grappling with this issue. I don't believe we should do something just to do it which is why I was against the TARP and Stimulus package.

We were told every day how if we didn't bail out this company and that company the end of the world would have come. We were told we had to spend billions and billions on GM to stop bankruptcy (alot of good that did). The govt is in the scare business now. If the govt tells me "ACT NOW ACT NOW" it gives me even more reason to pause.

disregarding GM, if you fail to see how a bank insuring assets of most other banks in the world failing wouldn't be extremely detrimental to the economy and way of life of every single human being, then i don't know what to say.

Stimulus package is an ideal divide, so cant say anything on that, but at least TARP will be paid back.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
The transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the rich has been HUGE over the past 3 decades. It's just rediculous. Giving the rich more tax cuts won't solve anything, and I laugh really hard when Republicans want to cut the marginal tax rate to 25% for the rich. Our country haven't seen taxes so low for the rich since the 20s/30s. The problem is that the rich evade taxes by capital gains tax and loopholes. Closing loopholes is a start and I hope Obama comes through.

BTW, raising taxes by three freaking cents isn't going to hurt the rich.

I have no problem of having the tax rate be at 35% for the rich (although I am not rich so it doesn't matter what I think) but 50% is ridiculous high and will do more damage than good.
 
gcubed said:
disregarding GM, if you fail to see how a bank insuring assets of most other banks in the world failing wouldn't be extremely detrimental to the economy and way of life of every single human being, then i don't know what to say.

Stimulus package is an ideal divide, so cant say anything on that, but at least TARP will be paid back.

I didn't say it wouldn't do damage, it would do a lot of damage. I just believe that it sets a horrible precedent. And to be honest I have a bigger problem with the car bailout than the banks even though I don't like either. I definitely see the need for the bank bailout but again, don't like it and believe it sets a horrible precedent. It isn't a political issue for me in terms of who did it.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
It wouldn't be the first time an "industrialized nation" disagrees with an American on issues of govt responsibility. Frankly I take comfort in that many nations would disagree with me since I disagree with them on many issues as well. Again, there are people who are grappling with this issue. I don't believe we should do something just to do it which is why I was against the TARP and Stimulus package.

We were told every day how if we didn't bail out this company and that company the end of the world would have come. We were told we had to spend billions and billions on GM to stop bankruptcy (alot of good that did). The govt is in the scare business now. If the govt tells me "ACT NOW ACT NOW" it gives me even more reason to pause.

The bailout, however excruciating it was to me, was a necessary evil. do you really want the banks of this country that hold over 61% of all the money in the banking system to go belly up? which would then severly threaten all 20 of the largest banks, which hold over 90% of the money in the banking system? along with one of largest insurers in the world? That collapse would have been catastrophic.

Im gonna stop now because this is a complete red herring to the post I made.
 
LovingSteam said:
I have no problem of having the tax rate be at 35% for the rich (although I am not rich so it doesn't matter what I think) but 50% is ridiculous high and will do more damage than good.

Well, at least you're better than I am. I still can't get past the fact that people arbitrarily think that some people deserve to pay more taxes than other people. Especially when they don't utilize the services provided by those taxes any more than the other people.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I have no problem of having the tax rate be at 35% for the rich (although I am not rich so it doesn't matter what I think) but 50% is ridiculous high and will do more damage than good.
What evidence do you base that on? It just sounds like assumption
 
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
Well, at least you're better than I am. I still can't get past the fact that people arbitrarily think that some people deserve to pay more taxes than other people. Especially when they don't utilize the services provided by those taxes any more than the other people.

No, believe me, I do have a problem with that as well. However, 35% wouldn't do the harm that 50% would.
 

Macam

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I know health care needs to be fixed (I will be without it in 5 days) but I am against making the govt any bigger than it already is. The way that the govt is increasing in power is simply not the way it was designed to be.

If you're dead set against the government being any bigger than it already is, then you're more or less stuck with the status quo. Businesses aren't going to magically bring down costs or expand coverage by themselves, especially given the current trends in health care.

And the government can be as big or as small as the people want it to be. The nation's founding was based on a separation of powers, complete with checks and balances. There's absolutely nothing restricting the size of the government as long as it goes through the proper channels.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
lovingstream complains about the government being in 'a scare business now,' but voted for Bush in 2004 when his entire platform rested on 9/11, 9/11 and 9/11. And when the crux of McCain's 2008 campaign was that Obama was too inexperienced to lead us with so many evil doers out to get us.

Interesting.
 
Jonm1010 said:
What evidence do you base that on? It just sounds like assumption

Honestly, all I have to do is listen to people's responses who live in Britain who are now going to be paying more than 50% in taxes. Many who were interviewed be it newspaper, tv, etc... have said they will contemplate moving or cutting back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1173545/ANDREW-LLOYD-WEBBER-The-thing-country-needs-pirate-raid-wealthy-dont-lynch-Im-rich-b---d.html

ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER: The last thing this country needs is a pirate raid on the wealth creators who still dare navigate our stormy waters
(...And don't lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for his own cause - I really fear an exodus of talent)


Andrew Lloyd Webber

Fearful: Andrew Lloyd Webber says an exodus of talent is inevitable

The opinion polls have uttered. The country loves the new 50 per cent top rate of income tax. Soak the rich. Smash the bankers. So Government spin doctors are in second heaven. The Conservatives' silence redefines a tomb. And I suppose there'd be quite a turnout for the public flogging of Sir Fred the Shred.

But before you book your tickets, hold hard. And before you lynch me as a rich b*****d flying a kite for my own cause, let me beg you to believe that I am not.

I believe that this new top rate of tax could be the final nail in the coffin of Britain plc.

I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.

Despite a rumour put around some years back, I have never contemplated leaving Britain for tax reasons. But in the 40-plus years I have been lucky enough to work here, I've seen a bit. So I must draw your attention to what is really proposed in this Budget.

Here's the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That's not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.


I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

I give you this example. I have altered the details of the family I write about for obvious reasons. But the essentials are true.

Last Thursday I met with a thirtysomething guy. I absolutely depend on him in a highly technical area of theatrical production. For legal reasons he has to employ himself through his own company. Under the new tax regime, he will have to pay 13.3 per cent to employ himself before he pays himself anything. And then he will have to pay 51.5 per cent on what's left.


This is a guy at the cutting edge of his profession who works all over the world. He is in demand in every major territory where entertainment is produced. He has a young wife and two children. Last Thursday he told me that he and his wife had decided that the UK was no longer where they wanted to live.

His wife thinks the State education system is inadequate. And she fears that a bankrupt Britain will increasingly be a worse place in which to live as the horror of our present financial mess hits us all in the solar plexus.

He says that he is young enough to set up shop somewhere else. The new tax rates were the final straw. These talented young people know they will make it impossible for them to educate their kids privately in the UK.

So Britain plc loses not just the 40 per cent he would have paid in personal taxes under the old regime - plus NI and everything else - but... Come on, I don't need to explain the knock-on effect. It's obviously huge and immensely damaging - that's why I am writing this article quickly and probably with too much passion.

The extraordinary thing is that, back in 1974, even Denis 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeak' Healey realised that you can't crush these talented people - who work much of the year abroad and away from their families - like specimen butterflies.

He introduced a reduction in tax of 25 per cent for any work performed by a UK resident overseas. This, amazingly, rose to 100 per cent if the work took the individual out of the UK for a year. These reductions were scrapped by the Tories when they introduced the 40 per cent top rate.

In the Healey days, there was no open-ended national insurance tax. Then national insurance was supposed to be just that, not the gigantic Ponzi scheme financed through direct taxation that it has become.

Of course there are thousands of people like my friend - some employing themselves through their own companies, some self-employed, some employed by others. But all are part of the wealth-creation engine that has helped power Britain's economy.

There is another dangerous aspect to the proposed tax climate. I am grateful to the distinguished crossbench peer who pointed it out to me. That is the wide disparity between the capital gains tax (CGT) rate at 18 per cent and the new top rate of income tax, which is effectively three times as much.

So it's far more rewarding to keep 82 per cent of that clever speculation you did in the property market than bust your guts creating real wealth.

Yes, it's laudable to have a CGT rate that encourages the creation of new enterprises. But it does not help Britain if the top rate of income tax is so high that the system actively encourages speculation, and therefore the repetition of the mess that we find ourselves in today.

So I ask the Government to reconsider what it is doing. More than ever before we need to keep high-flying professionals in the UK. We can't, as we have done in the past, dump on them through penal personal taxation.

Of course we know that there have been some shocking excesses in the City of London. But for years we have also had drummed into us that the City of London proudly took over from manufacturing as the UK's main source of income.

New Labour rejoiced in the fruits of the excesses of the bankers.

Of course, with hindsight, their bonuses were obscene. But New Labour gratefully taxed them.

So, I beg readers not to confuse overpaid bankers with the rest of Britain's entrepreneurs.

The next few years are going to be horrendous in the UK. The last thing we need is a Somali pirate-style raid on the few wealth creators who still dare to navigate Britain's gale-force waters.
 

APF

Member
As I've repeatedly mentioned, it's a good politician's job to make you fear what will happen if their proposals aren't enacted.
 

gcubed

Member
LovingSteam said:
I didn't say it wouldn't do damage, it would do a lot of damage. I just believe that it sets a horrible precedent. And to be honest I have a bigger problem with the car bailout than the banks even though I don't like either. I definitely see the need for the bank bailout but again, don't like it and believe it sets a horrible precedent. It isn't a political issue for me in terms of who did it.

i'm not a pure free market capitalist in terms of how to run things, and would prefer my government to be a business buster in cases where capitalism has run wild to the detriment of the entire world. I dont believe in complete free market gov't, but i would prefer the gov't to only be in it to clear out a mess, then get the hell out... with these bailouts, i prefer the gov't not to hold any stock or any equity in the company by the end of the recession, take control of the fuck up that AIG is, then rip the company apart. I also dont believe a company should be allowed to become "too big to fail", so i'm for regulation and an overwatch... the problem is this country in the recent decades has become focused on short term growth... the entire country. Focusing solely on short term growth as an indicator to company health will cause what we are experiencing now

edit... yes i rambled, sorry
 
scorcho said:
lovingstream complains about the government being in 'a scare business now,' but voted for Bush in 2004 when his entire platform rested on 9/11, 9/11 and 9/11. And when the crux of McCain's 2008 campaign was that Obama was too inexperienced to lead us with so many evil doers out to get us.

Interesting.

And guess what, in terms of security I voted for Bush and McCain and I don't regret that. However, in terms of the patriot act which I originally supported I now don't for many of the things it does. People are allowed to change how they feel. Obama has changed many things as many others do every day.
 
gcubed said:
i'm not a pure free market capitalist in terms of how to run things, and would prefer my government to be a business buster in cases where capitalism has run wild to the detriment of the entire world. I dont believe in complete free market gov't, but i would prefer the gov't to only be in it to clear out a mess, then get the hell out... with these bailouts, i prefer the gov't not to hold any stock or any equity in the company by the end of the recession, take control of the fuck up that AIG is, then rip the company apart. I also dont believe a company should be allowed to become "too big to fail", so i'm for regulation and an overwatch... the problem is this country in the recent decades has become focused on short term growth... the entire country. Focusing solely on short term growth as an indicator to company health will cause what we are experiencing now

edit... yes i rambled, sorry

I agree with that. In terms of the short term growth and health care, would you mind explaining that a little more.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Don't care about your motivations, just pointing out how ironic your lament against the gov't suddenly, miraculously being in the 'scare business now' is.
 

dave is ok

aztek is ok
You realize that wealthy Brits are taxed far more than Americans?

Lots of wealthy Brits moved (many to America) to avoid it - back when we didnt have ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
scorcho said:
Don't care about your motivations, just pointing out how ironic your lament against the gov't suddenly, miraculously being in the 'scare business now' is.

It's interesting to me that you find almost everything I say as being politically motivated. You may hide behind your "don't care about your motivations" however if I were a betting man I would bet that if I hadn't come out and said I didn't vote for Obama or wasn't a fan of his you wouldn't be pointing out the things you are. I felt this way for the last year of the Bush admin especially with the bail out. So continue trying to politicize what I say if that is what you prefer, even though it has nothing to do it.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
LovingSteam said:
And this is where we differ. I don't believe its the governments responsibility to pay for A, B, C, and D. I believe that all of us have an opportunity to be happy but not a guarantee. Remember, its the pursuit of happiness that is a human right, not happiness itself. Look at the Supreme Court nominee. She worked her self through college and is successful. I believe smaller govt is better. Give people the tools to be successful but don't guarantee their success/happiness. There are many people who believe its not moral to have people fail, that we as a country must make sure each and everyone has the same success stories, same level of education, same income, same size of house, etc... Let the govt do what its there to do, nothing more.
The market will not fix the healthcare system, as every other industrialized nation but us has figured out. Nor will the market address climate change, or our deficient infrastructure which needs both massive repairs and modern upgrades (high speed rail for starters). Nor will it shift quickly enough on alternative energy without at the very least some rapid changes in standards - which will carry a cost one way or the other.

And government programs and safety nets helped both Obama and Sotomayor through hard times. As they did myself. I actually relate a bit to their stories, though I wasn't as disadvantaged. So if smaller government means cutting those, then your examples fall through.
 
dave is ok said:
You realize that wealthy Brits are taxed far more than Americans?

Lots of wealthy Brits moved (many to America) to avoid it - back when we didnt have ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yes, I do. However, there are many in the states who would argue that we need to copy the Brits tax policy against the rich.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom