Haha! Europeans puzzled at why Higher taxes=Less Revenue.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Grandluxe, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate
    Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.
    By Robert Winnett 6:47PM GMT 27 Nov 2012

    The number of people declaring incomes of more than £1m slumped from 16,000 to 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new tax rules in 2010.The amount of tax paid by top earners fell from £13.4billion to £6.5billion as a result.

    It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.
  2. It's played out on every level of government...States and/or Counties decide they will introduce some form of a "sin tax" and project the revenues gained (assuming constant demand)...lo and behold, the consumer just drives across state or county lines and skips the tax altogether...
  3. Sweden's lowered their corporate tax rates and their maximum tax on capital. It's had a positive effect. Now there's discussion of lowering personal income tax rates as well.
  4. jem


    ricter? real world vs krugman... you see revenues go down when you raise taxes and up when you lower them.
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I said it before. I'm waiting for some third world country to throw out there an international call for millionaires, promising them a low tax for 100 years, and government support in opening businesses, etc. That country could steal all the world's money in a decade.
  6. Doubt that will happen, but it is on the right track.

    Capital and employment need to be "incentivised", not punished, if a government wants growth. IOW... lower taxes, reduce burdensome regulations/expenses and companies will WANT to put capital to work... and employing citizens. Raise taxes and make it difficult for enterprise/capital to grow, they either hold back or do their business elsewhere... a damned 5th grader could figure THAT out!

    It's painfully obvious that Odumbo's talk of "employment" and "growth" are mis-directs. He doesn't care squat about jobs and success... he wants voters on the dole so that the Democraps can remain in power. Nothing else matters.

  7. I'm not sure that I completely agree with that premise. A true third world country is one helluva scary place for someone with wealth. Kidnappings, ransom, armed private security forces, "walled in" enclaves, embedding GPS in your children to stave off the kidnapping/ransom epidemics, etc, etc...

    OTOH, if you could literally "wall in" an entire larger community and still enjoy the benefits of that wealth without the everpresent criminal element of every third world country, that's a novel idea.
  8. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Ever been to Costa Rica? Panama? Thailand? How about Hungary, or Armenia? That's just naming a few.

    All third world, all very safe. Lots of expats. We're not talking suburb Tampa, here, but still, very safe.
  9. Third world countries don't have infrastructure (modern roads, bridges, schools, utilities, internet, etc.) and many are unsafe. My wife and I are seriously considering a move out of the US, but it has be a place where our children will be safe and where they can get a good education.

    I don't mind paying taxes if I get something for it. I currently live in California where I pay very high taxes and get lousy schools, roads, etc.
  10. We went on vacation to Costa Rica two years ago. Internet connection was lousy and our rental car was broken into the first day we got there.

    The people are nice and the food was good, but it's not a place I would choose to live with children.
    #10     Nov 28, 2012