John Paulson, billionaire hedge fund manager, is planing to move to save on taxes

[Attic]

Well duh indeed. Only the terminally stupid think those with the money are just going to do nothing when you jack up the rates. They're going to find the best way around it, and they can hire the best people to find the ways around it. Serves the idiot socialists in France right to have a bunch of wealth leaving the country, leaving their budget in even worse shape.

Truth.


Folks should do everything they can to avoid, but not evaid taxes.

Of course if you jack up rates folks are going to do everything legal to avoid paying the increase.

Not an easy solution, but simply raising the rates does not come even close to bringing in a linear increase in revenues. Successful companies ought to be making financially stable families/individuals throughout its ranks from the top to the janitor. Publicly owned companies are tilting the tables as much as they ever have to a few hands. Increased monetary rewards from improved productivity and efficiency is being skimmed to a very few hands in the US.

USAA just did an across the board 18% bonus last year if I read correctly. They are not on the stock exchange.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yes. Just because you may not like to pay them you still have to. I pay mine even though id rather not.

You saying you never pay your taxes?

No, We shouldnt pay income taxes. The income tax should be ended and replaced with a national sales tax. Of course I pay my taxes because if I dont those idiots in the government will come after and have me thrown into jail.

 

[Jhhnn]

Paulson could pay more than 70% and there would be very little effect but taxing the rich isn't the answer. Its always easy to blame the rich since they are a minority they can always be a scapegoat. Just because he is rich doesn't mean he gets to run the lives of others. As long as the government obeys the Constitution they dont have power to sell the same power which leftists want the government to have more of.

The role of government is to protect liberty and it must stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. That's why the income tax should be ended and replaced with a national sales tax. If we didnt spend all this money on so many social programs then we wouldnt need all these high taxes.

And what right do you have to the money that belongs to the rich? Considering its the lower and middle class that use many of the social services why should the rich have to pay for them? The government doesnt own our money and has no right to steal it from us.

Its funny how leftists like to talk about the rich not paying their "fair share" but never suggest what the rate should be or only point out rich republicans but not democrats. They also never point out the people who dont pay any income taxes and dont pay their "fair share".

Its also interesting how leftists like to use broad-brush strokes to target the rich but are outraged if someone does the same to radical Muslims or minorities.

Deny & Duh-vert- standard dimwittedness.

When Paulson's hedge fund buys up any company, he's now running the lives of the workers, including the managers. when it's right-sized, downsized, offshored & looted or forced into bankruptcy with debt acquisition used to pay the hedge fund, he's running & ruining the lives of investors in that company, too. When he shorts the piss out of MBS, he's running the lives of millions whose pensions & retirement funds were invested in what used to be very safe & staid investments.

If he's not after power, what is he after, anyway? He doesn't need money, at all, after leading the charge of the lootocracy during recent years-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paulson

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Good riddance....?

 

[TallBill]

Good riddance....?

Yeah. Let him move. Free market right? I use every rule to my advantage to retain my meager wealth.

 

[CycloWizard]

The current situation is f'd up because of half-assed measures. A single payer system is optimal at this point merely because the private companies have captured the regulators and, at the same time, have squeezed the market for as much profit as possible while not allocating funds appropriately. Furthermore, Americans are already paying for those without insurance coverage anyway. If something catastrophic happens to a non-insured the bankruptcy or forgiven bills are merely shuffled through higher costs to everybody else.

This is also why healthcare is so asymmetrical - preventative care is too costly for non-insured so they go to the doctor less and are, overall, less healthy.

The problem is that Americans don't want to give up an ounce of "freedom" for any sort of logical reasons. The "freedom" is already gone through the mis-allocation and, overall, Americans would likely benefit from a single payer system. However, we prefer to keep the least efficient system. The nordic countries should be a prime example.

That word optimal does not mean what you think it means. In fact, it has a very precise mathematical definition. Your solution is to hand the keys to the kingdom over to a government which you admit is corrupt. Will the government suddenly rise above corruption when it gains complete market control? Hell no. It will instead give those private entities bribing officials that much more power over their government puppets. If people had to pay for their own stuff (preventative maintenance just like a car) then they would take care of it more and better. This would also encourage more primary care physicians due to rising demand. Instead, physicians become specialists because that's where the money is due to this skewed system. Government intervention in the marketplace inevitably disturbs equilibrium, thereby introducing inefficiency, raising costs, and decreasing quality of care. Thus, while a single-payer system may be better than the hopeless mess we have now, it is certainly not optimal according to any real definition of that word.