Republicans, even Lyin' Ryan cave on no tax increases for people making >$250k.

[actuarial]

Yes, I read your bullshit reasoning - and it was too hilarious to even consider:

2/3 Drop is going to bounce back - Really? No comment on that level of stupidity.

And how exactly do you "Shift" your pay from year to year? Yes, I'll just take my 10 million and apply it to last year, no problemo.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-away-because-of-50p-tax-is-completely-bogus/

it was by then known that something like £18 billion of income was ‘forestalled’ from 2010-11 unto 2009-10 to avoid the 50p income tax rate. That meant income was simply shifted from the later year into the earlier year to get round the additional tax charge.

Forestalling would explain maybe £18 billion of this change. Even the Treasury agreed that. But remember that means an adjustment is needed to both years. In other words 2009-10 was overstated by £18 billion. It should have been £103 billion as a result. And 2010-11 was understated by £18 billion. It should have been £106 billion after the forestalling effect was removed.

So there was actually an increase in income in 2010-11 for those earning over £150,000 but for a massive and one off exercise in tax avoidance. And there was no impact at all of people leaving the country.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So how far up your ass is the hand exactly? Do they only put it in up to the wrist, or do the go elbow deep usually?

Curious minds want to know.

How often do you talk to yourself? You should seek professional help when it gets this far.

Liberals are great with rational arguments, aren't they?

 

[ElFenix]

Taxing going up wasn't a question. It was just a matter of where and when. And targeting only $250k+ annoys me to no end. All around or nothing - and people wonder why we complain that the top 10% pays 80% of the taxes.

top 10% pays 68% of the taxes but has 73% of the money. and that's not including payroll taxes.

 

[actuarial]

Your equating property tax to the likes of payroll/investment/medicare/social security taxes? Really?

No, I'm equating state income tax to federal income tax. I'm not talking about property tax at all.

 

[soulcougher73]

How often do you talk to yourself? You should seek professional help when it gets this far.

Liberals are great with rational arguments, aren't they?

Young pups thinking they are funny. So pathetic.

Im not a liberal, dumb ass.

 

[Matt1970]

Some things to consider:
- A big portion of that drop in millionaire earners is temporary, as posted in the original thread on that article. People shifted taxes to earlier years, creating a 1 year drop in earnings following that push. You need more that just one year's data to indicate anything meaningful long term.
- There were places close by that were easily accessible to move to due to being part of the EU. This doesn't apply to Americans.
- The UK was instituting a top tax rate that was higher than many other countries. For this to apply to America the rate would have to go way up.
- If higher tax rates are going to drive people away in droves, why do so many of the people earning all that money continue to live in New York and California even with their substantially higher taxes compared to other states? Moving to another state would seem a lot easier than moving to another country.

Ask Tom Golisano who moved to Florida over high NY taxes.

 

[Ausm]

Young pups thinking they are funny. So pathetic.

Im not a liberal, dumb ass.

He sees Liburals under his bed at night right next to the Ronnie Raygun blow up doll.

 

[soulcougher73]

He sees Liburals under his bed at night right next to the Ronnie Raygun blow up doll.

That would explain it then.

 

[Matt1970]

top 10% pays 68% of the taxes but has 73% of the money. and that's not including payroll taxes.

Where did you get your data? The top 10% earns 45% of total income and pays 48% of all taxes.

 

[actuarial]

Ask Tom Golisano who moved to Florida over high NY taxes.

An anecdote doesn't equal a trend. There are still huge swaths of top earners living in NY. They're suddenly going to flee the country to save some taxes when they won't currently flee the state?

 

[Matt1970]

An anecdote doesn't equal a trend. There are still huge swaths of top earners living in NY. They're suddenly going to flee the country to save some taxes when they won't currently flee the state?

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/b...2011/10/where-have-all-the-millionaires-gone/

Even the Democratic Governor understands it:

Gov. Cuomo last week stood firm in his opposition to the tax, saying that the problem in New York is that taxes are too high on everyone, and that if they are increased the wealthy and the businesses they control would move elsewhere.

 

[actuarial]

http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/b...2011/10/where-have-all-the-millionaires-gone/

Even the Democratic Governor understands it:

So why aren't they already doing it? New York already has one of the most punitive income tax rates in the US. If higher taxes cause people to move away, then why aren't higher taxes causing people to move away?

I'm not saying 100% it won't happen, I just don't see the data to back it up (and actually see evidence that it won't happen based on current experience).

And as I said before: it's a hell of a lot easier to move states than to move countries. Where do you think these millionaires are going to move to (as in, give me actual names of countries)?

 

[soulcougher73]

So why aren't they already doing it? New York already has one of the most punitive income tax rates in the US. If higher taxes cause people to move away, then why aren't higher taxes causing people to move away?

I'm not saying 100% it won't happen, I just don't see the data to back it up (and actually see evidence that it won't happen based on current experience).

And as I said before: it's a hell of a lot easier to move states than to move countries. Where do you think these millionaires are going to move to (as in, give me actual names of countries)?

My opinion is whenever you hear someone say they will move due to taxes, all it is is an attempt at a scare tactic in hopes their taxes dont get raised. A thinly vieled threat basically. They have no intentions of going anywhere.

 

[ElFenix]

for money, edward n. wolff, 2010 update. you'll note i said 'money' not 'income.' then, despite using money as my measure, i only counted income taxes. as you're aware, there's a whole lot more taxes out there than income taxes.

your chart shows total taxes, which shows that the tax situation is even further skewed toward the bottom of the totem pole. the people with 73% of the money only pay 48% of all taxes. awesome system we've got.

Where did you get your data? The top 10% earns 45% of total income and pays 48% of all taxes.

 

[Sonikku]

So now it's only $80 Billion. $80 Billion fixes a $1.2 Trillion deficit.

Agreed. This won't be the silver bullet to cure the deficit single handedly, therefore it is not worth considering. :thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

As much as I want it all around - the targetting of millionaires is an area you may want to tread slowly on instead of this retarded lower class bitching up a storm to them demanding they fix their problems.


So I'll simply ask this: We do try to tax the upper class, and what is to prevent this from happening? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...aires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

People didn't become rich by being stupid.

Yawn. UK tax law is entirely different from our own. When a UK citizen moves to another country, they're taxed only on that portion of income earned in the UK. US citizens pay US taxes on all income, regardless of where it's declared to have been earned. There are even statutes regarding renouncing citizenship for tax purposes.

You can't legally escape US income taxes by moving somewhere else.

We also need to realize that much of wealthy people's income is voluntary- they don't need to realize capital gains, at all. They can just let their money ride where it's at, for the most part, at least for a year. They spend only a small % of their incomes, anyway- the rest is reinvested.

In order for tax increases to be politically palatable, they need to start at the top, and it needs to be shown that the truly wealthy pay at least as high a % as those who make a small fraction as much. That's true even within the top 1%. That's currently not true at all. Mitt pays 15%, while those lower in the 1% average 2-4% higher.

Current Repub flimflams attempt to maintain that disparity, even if they have to throw the rest of the top 1% overboard in the process.

If people making $400K in earned income pay an effective 20%, then those earning $40M from investments should pay at least as much, and that won't happen unless their base rate, the rate on investment income, is raised.

Once those at the top are seen to be doing that, then effective rate increases for people further down the foodchain may gain traction. Not until.