Should the rich pay more tax?

[alonzo-ny]

It is completely boring and unambitious. This is why Richard Branson is a good role model. I always thought if I was that rich I would build whatever buildings I felt like. Complete follies, skyscrapers and Carnegie style community buildings.

[cle]

I always thought that if I was a billionaire, I would fund things in my home city like new tube lines or whatever - or some obscene supertall named after me. Or buy a whole city block and raze it to be a new urban park?

You don't see so much of that, selfish bastards!

[Gzdvtz]

Originally Posted by gothicform

a learjet. obvious. multiple homes on different continents. a 135 foot long yacht. a personal chef. there's a huge difference between what 10 million and 100 million can get you. the real question is what can 20 billion give you that 2 billion cannot and the answer there is really nothing.

Uh... my question was "what a 10 million atop a 200 million you already have can get you".

Nowadays the superich really dont give a fuck and prefer to buy football clubs and private islands and as a result people are becoming resentful.

Personally I'm not resentful towards their wealth and I don't see why anyone should be, I just don't get it, their avarice that is. However, I do think find it normal to be resentful when you see how they're basically bribing politicians to give them more tax cuts. That's why I asked my hypothetical question, why someone who is worth, say, 200 mil would want so badly to pay less taxes that would save him a few million.

[wjfox]

[chuck_nbc]

More tax? They pay less tax than me (% wise)! Only if we can make them pay the tax they are suppose to pay in first place!!

[wjfox]

[mic of Orion]

Originally Posted by wjfox

[dom]

Could do with a bit of noblesse oblige to be honest - I think it's died out amongst many of the super-rich. Philip Green is the prime example - paying his wife to avoid a billion pounds of tax.

That's fair enough, he's got a clever accountant. But I'm sure he knows what he's doing is a bit cheeky. If Green has £4 billion in the bank he should build a new college at Oxbridge, open a library or build a new swimming pool/school in a poor area of the UK. Green should be aware of his heritage:

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished."

I don't earn so much but like giving to charity and homeless people. It's a nice thing to do. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have the right idea.

[Romania1]

Geoism economics (not new)..

• The free-market is at its core.
• The free-market must be unrigged and not monopolized to operate effectively.
• Speculation of land and its resources distorts the free-market, as we have seen in two world-wide crashes in 1929 ans 2008 - land was the cause.
• We need a mechanism that would prevent this free-market rigging, that is Land Vaulation Taxation (LVT). This puts a brake on the land speculation. With the added bonus of no income tax. Only one tax. The ONE TAX.
• The value in land was Community created, and not by the individual. This value is reclaimed. LVT is not a tax, it is just reclaiming values that the Community created.
• Winston Churchill was big fan of this approach.

The basics of Classical economics is:

• LAND - the result is confusingly called "economic rent".
• CAPITAL - man made things, the result is "profit or interest".
• LABOR - the result is "wages".

Neoclassical economics, formed 100 years ago, has been moved LAND into CAPITAL. This distorts, and since we have had two world-wide economic crashes, which were both fulled by rising LAND prices as debt and after debt was poured into non-taxed LAND. In between the major crashes there has been minor boom and busts in many countries.



I buy a new car and the value drops. I buy an old house and it rises in value -well the LAND rises in value. Why? The value of the land was created by community activity, such as spending on infrastructure like, metro rail networks, roads, schools, hospitals, etc, with their tax money. This creates economic growth. The economic growth of Community activity soaks into the land crystallizing as LAND VALUES. This is why house/land values rise - LAND is immovable. In short, the value of the land belongs to the Community as their activity and money created it, not the occupier of the LAND, who did nothing to increase that value. The value of the bricks (the CAPITAL) on the land, the building, belongs to the occupier of the land. The bricks, the hosue, depreciate in value like a car.

Currently there is no mechanism to feed the LAND VALUES back into the economic cycle to maintain, improve and extend vital economic growth creating infrastructure. The LAND VALUES are creamed off as windfalls by landowners. The Land/house market is a giant sluice to the community's money. The land/house market is easy money for doing little more than nothing - merely occupying or owning LAND. Amongst the riches people in most countries, own LAND. Hong Kong build a metro system using taxation of land values, not central taxes.

The mechanism to complete the economic cycle reclaiming the Communities values soaked into the LAND is called Land Value Tax (LVT) - a tax on all land and only its "value", not the bricks on the land, the building. However, a great plus point of full LVT is that there is no Income Tax. This stabilizing of the LAND market creates a level, stable, free-market playing field. Not taxing people's energies and enterprise by taking their wages in Income Tax, creates a more enterprise environment playing on the stable free-market playing field.

These were the teachings of Adam Smith, the father of classical econmomics and Henry George. Professor Mason Gaffney puts this across very well in the modern sense. He highlights where the economic system was hijacked by self-interest to remove land from economics 100 years ago, which as we all know gives us a highly unstable economic system, leading to misery for millions. Using LVT and removing Income Tax gives a largely self regulating economic system, eliminating boom and busts. LVT also keep house prices to acceptable levels with no housing/land bubbles, meaning cheaper, larger homes.

[somersetchris]

Originally Posted by Romania1

Geoism economics (not new)..

• The free-market is at its core.
• The free-market must be unrigged and not monopolized to operate effectively.
• Speculation of land and its resources distorts the free-market, as we have seen in two world-wide crashes in 1929 ans 2008 - land was the cause.
• We need a mechanism that would prevent this free-market rigging, that is Land Vaulation Taxation (LVT). This puts a brake on the land speculation. With the added bonus of no income tax. Only one tax. The ONE TAX.
• The value in land was Community created, and not by the individual. This value is reclaimed. LVT is not a tax, it is just reclaiming values that the Community created.
• Winston Churchill was big fan of this approach.

The basics of Classical economics is:

• LAND - the result is confusingly called "economic rent".
• CAPITAL - man made things, the result is "profit or interest".
• LABOR - the result is "wages".

Neoclassical economics, formed 100 years ago, has been moved LAND into CAPITAL. This distorts, and since we have had two world-wide economic crashes, which were both fulled by rising LAND prices as debt and after debt was poured into non-taxed LAND. In between the major crashes there has been minor boom and busts in many countries.



I buy a new car and the value drops. I buy an old house and it rises in value -well the LAND rises in value. Why? The value of the land was created by community activity, such as spending on infrastructure like, metro rail networks, roads, schools, hospitals, etc, with their tax money. This creates economic growth. The economic growth of Community activity soaks into the land crystallizing as LAND VALUES. This is why house/land values rise - LAND is immovable. In short, the value of the land belongs to the Community as their activity and money created it, not the occupier of the LAND, who did nothing to increase that value. The value of the bricks (the CAPITAL) on the land, the building, belongs to the occupier of the land. The bricks, the hosue, depreciate in value like a car.

Currently there is no mechanism to feed the LAND VALUES back into the economic cycle to maintain, improve and extend vital economic growth creating infrastructure. The LAND VALUES are creamed off as windfalls by landowners. The Land/house market is a giant sluice to the community's money. The land/house market is easy money for doing little more than nothing - merely occupying or owning LAND. Amongst the riches people in most countries, own LAND. Hong Kong build a metro system using taxation of land values, not central taxes.

The mechanism to complete the economic cycle reclaiming the Communities values soaked into the LAND is called Land Value Tax (LVT) - a tax on all land and only its "value", not the bricks on the land, the building. However, a great plus point of full LVT is that there is no Income Tax. This stabilizing of the LAND market creates a level, stable, free-market playing field. Not taxing people's energies and enterprise by taking their wages in Income Tax, creates a more enterprise environment playing on the stable free-market playing field.

These were the teachings of Adam Smith, the father of classical econmomics and Henry George. Professor Mason Gaffney puts this across very well in the modern sense. He highlights where the economic system was hijacked by self-interest to remove land from economics 100 years ago, which as we all know gives us a highly unstable economic system, leading to misery for millions. Using LVT and removing Income Tax gives a largely self regulating economic system, eliminating boom and busts. LVT also keep house prices to acceptable levels with no housing/land bubbles, meaning cheaper, larger homes.

But what does Harrison have to say about it?

[Romania1]

Originally Posted by somersetchris

But what does Harrison have to say about it?

Look at the videos.

[somersetchris]

Originally Posted by Romania1

Geoism economics (not new)..

• The free-market is at its core.
• The free-market must be unrigged and not monopolized to operate effectively.
• Speculation of land and its resources distorts the free-market, as we have seen in two world-wide crashes in 1929 ans 2008 - land was the cause.
• We need a mechanism that would prevent this free-market rigging, that is Land Vaulation Taxation (LVT). This puts a brake on the land speculation. With the added bonus of no income tax. Only one tax. The ONE TAX.
• The value in land was Community created, and not by the individual. This value is reclaimed. LVT is not a tax, it is just reclaiming values that the Community created.
• Winston Churchill was big fan of this approach.

The basics of Classical economics is:

• LAND - the result is confusingly called "economic rent".
• CAPITAL - man made things, the result is "profit or interest".
• LABOR - the result is "wages".

Neoclassical economics, formed 100 years ago, has been moved LAND into CAPITAL. This distorts, and since we have had two world-wide economic crashes, which were both fulled by rising LAND prices as debt and after debt was poured into non-taxed LAND. In between the major crashes there has been minor boom and busts in many countries.



I buy a new car and the value drops. I buy an old house and it rises in value -well the LAND rises in value. Why? The value of the land was created by community activity, such as spending on infrastructure like, metro rail networks, roads, schools, hospitals, etc, with their tax money. This creates economic growth. The economic growth of Community activity soaks into the land crystallizing as LAND VALUES. This is why house/land values rise - LAND is immovable. In short, the value of the land belongs to the Community as their activity and money created it, not the occupier of the LAND, who did nothing to increase that value. The value of the bricks (the CAPITAL) on the land, the building, belongs to the occupier of the land. The bricks, the hosue, depreciate in value like a car.

Currently there is no mechanism to feed the LAND VALUES back into the economic cycle to maintain, improve and extend vital economic growth creating infrastructure. The LAND VALUES are creamed off as windfalls by landowners. The Land/house market is a giant sluice to the community's money. The land/house market is easy money for doing little more than nothing - merely occupying or owning LAND. Amongst the riches people in most countries, own LAND. Hong Kong build a metro system using taxation of land values, not central taxes.

The mechanism to complete the economic cycle reclaiming the Communities values soaked into the LAND is called Land Value Tax (LVT) - a tax on all land and only its "value", not the bricks on the land, the building. However, a great plus point of full LVT is that there is no Income Tax. This stabilizing of the LAND market creates a level, stable, free-market playing field. Not taxing people's energies and enterprise by taking their wages in Income Tax, creates a more enterprise environment playing on the stable free-market playing field.

These were the teachings of Adam Smith, the father of classical econmomics and Henry George. Professor Mason Gaffney puts this across very well in the modern sense. He highlights where the economic system was hijacked by self-interest to remove land from economics 100 years ago, which as we all know gives us a highly unstable economic system, leading to misery for millions. Using LVT and removing Income Tax gives a largely self regulating economic system, eliminating boom and busts. LVT also keep house prices to acceptable levels with no housing/land bubbles, meaning cheaper, larger homes.

Spot the difference http://www.amazon.com/review/R1MWXS59TKBPT5

[Romania1]

This is good. It proves you are taking notice of some sort. Some great reviews on Amazon there. Did you understand the content? Keep it up. Fantastic.

[Romania1]

...

[Romania1]

How Hong Kong approaches land value tax ideal. FT..

Rosen says (clips from FT, not all article)..

"Government should be financed from land rents."

"Mr Pilling writes, for example: “By this means, Hong Kong has conjured a cheap and gleaming transport system seemingly out of nothing.” Precisely. A transport system makes land more valuable so, if it is worth building, it can and should be paid for out of the increased land rents it creates."

"A classic statement of the case for land value taxation is – instead of paying rent to a landlord and tax to the state, why not pay rent to the state, and no taxes? Hong Kong comes closer to this ideal than most places."

So Hong Kong, has conjured a cheap and gleaming transport system seemingly out of nothing. By using the correct taxation method, taxing the values of land.

45% of the HK governments expenditure comes from land. Top income tax rate is 17%. No wonder Hong Kong a financial steam roller.

[Soul_13]

Flat 10% tax for everyone earning less than 1,000,000 pounds per year, 40% for everything above that.

[alonzo-ny]

Said it before but it is still the best solution. No tax under say 10k and everyone pays the same % above that. But the rich just have to actually pay their share.

[wjfox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...g-50p-tax-rate




Cable confirms ending of 50p tax rate, and reveals 'mansion tax' plans

Business secretary in agreement with the chancellor over tax rate, but says the wealthy have to 'pay their share'

Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 March 2011 20.16 BST

The business secretary, Vince Cable, has confirmed the 50p rate on tax will be abolished – and revealed the government would consider bringing in a 'mansions tax' to ensure the wealthiest pay their way.

The chancellor, George Osborne, ordered a review of tax on top earners in the budget last week, restating that the 50p rate on those who earn above £150,000 was only temporary, and triggering speculation that the rate could be wound down as soon as 2013. Cable in two interviews raised the issue of the rate and alternatives to it.

The move would leave the government exposed to accusations that it is softening taxes for the rich, amid intense public anxiety about the fairness of the cuts. The business secretary's intervention comes just a day after up to 500,000 people took to the streets to demonstrate against the government's economic plans.

Labour pointed out that the coalition would be reducing the tax for the richest while forcing the poorest to lose the largest proportion of their pay packets through the VAT hike.

Cable, who argued in opposition for a 0.5% levy on properties worth more than £1m, told the BBC's Politics Show: "I and George Osborne agree that we have to move away from extremely high marginal rates of tax on income, including that [the 50p rate of tax]."

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: "It moved up to 50p in an emergency because we had to have a sense of solidarity that everybody was bearing some of the pain, and the chancellor said in the budget that we're going to have to move away from that. I agree with him. The Liberal Democrats agree with him.

"But it needs to be a change which is fair overall and does take account of the fact that the wealthy have got to pay their share. The emphasis may well have to shift from high marginal rates of tax on income which are undesirable, to taxation of wealth, including property, and the chancellor said that, as much as that, in his budget."

Asked if he was advocating a mansion tax, he said: "Well, there is a very strong argument ... that you need to have a proper base for taxing property and I'm sure that's one of the things we're going to have to look at as we change away from these very high marginal rates."

Labour originally introduced the tax rate last year, and the Tories promised to keep it temporarily. Osborne said at the budget: "I am clear that the 50p tax rate would do lasting damage to our economy if it were to become permanent. That is why I regard it as a temporary measure."

The Treasury expressed concern about how much revenue the higher rate was bringing in. The Office for Budget Responsibility later revealed that it expected £2bn of the revenue to go uncollected amid evidence that companies had paid large bonuses prior to its introduction to avoid paying part of the costs.

A Treasury spokesman said last week's budget set out all existing tax plans. Treasury sources also distanced it from Cable's proposals, saying there was "no detailed planning" on taxes for top earners currently being developed by officials.

Cable has raised the possibility of a new mansion tax amid increasing nervousness in the coalition over the AV referendum in May. The issue will prove the biggest test for the coalition, as a totemic policy for the Lib Dems and a test of David Cameron's leadership to his backbenchers, all of whom oppose AV. If the Lib Dems lose, the leadership will need to prove to the rank and file that it is making serious gains elsewhere. A mansions tax would appeal to the disillusioned left of the party.

Asked about the effect the referendum could have on the coalition, Cable said he was "pretty sure" the government would survive it, even if the Lib Dems fail to secure AV: "I am pretty sure it would [survive]. But there is a lot at stake and that is why we are fighting hard for it."

He added: "We are a grown-up party, we have not thrown our toys out of the pram because things happen we disagree with. I think you will find the approach to this whole thing is a very mature one."

The competing campaigns for the referendum step up a gear on Monday when the No to AV group launch a national advertising campaign appealing to people to keep the one person one vote system.

Matthew Elliott, director of the No campaign, said: "One person, one vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. It represents our most profound political belief. It is a statement that when it comes to electing those who lead us, we each have an equal say and an equal voice. That is why we are clear in our aim: Keep One Person, One Vote and stop supporters of extremist, fringe parties getting more than one vote."

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign Monday publishes the names of all its funders, demanding that the No campaign does the same. It has received £951,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, £909,517 from the Electoral Reform Society and £114,000 from the Electoral Commission.

[somersetchris]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Cable confirms ending of 50p tax rate, and reveals 'mansion tax' plans

Business secretary in agreement with the chancellor over tax rate, but says the wealthy have to 'pay their share'

Cutting public services is necessary, so are tax cuts for the rich

[alonzo-ny]

Just being devils advocate again but they do state they want to make them pay more elsewhere.