Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Duck Soup

The tenth man made a load of widgets. But his nine friends had no money to buy them. Without his customers, the tenth man is bankrupt, not wealthy.

cgarrad

How is he bankrupt, surely he is just poor?

Canvasser

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part

I think the point is that the top 1% have about 45% of the world's wealth while the bottom 50% have about 5%.

Eliot Rosewater

Am I the only one who finds this focus on the super-rich possibly irrelevant? Surely the aim should be to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone, rather than just keeping the "top" down? That achieved, is it really a problem if a select few go beyond this minimum by enormous amounts?

The argument might go that taxing the super-rich more rigorously will allow us to help the needier more. But I haven't seen much discussion of that here. In fact, no one has suggested how the extra revenue should be spent to tackle the social problems. Is taxing the super-rich being seen as a good in and of itself?

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

I disagree with the above comment, revolution is still possible in the current order. If the western world go three days without a solid meal you will see the collapse of the entire social contract.

That's a rather dramatic if. I'd be interested in hearing a description of the mechanism by which a mass famine would occur in the western world?

Because, pending such an "apocalypse", there will never be a large scale revolution of the kind you describe. People like Facebook and their iPhones too much. Any kind of revolution will risk the middle-class consumer lifestyle that most western people have become accustomed to.

Duggys Housemate

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part

No under the strictest form of pure communism they would take 1%, although that is impossible in practice.

Duggys Housemate

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds this focus on the super-rich possibly irrelevant? Surely the aim should be to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone, rather than just keeping the "top" down? That achieved, is it really a problem if a select few go beyond this minimum by enormous amounts?

The argument might go that taxing the super-rich more rigorously will allow us to help the needier more. But I haven't seen much discussion of that here. In fact, no one has suggested how the extra revenue should be spent to tackle the social problems. Is taxing the super-rich being seen as a good in and of itself?

Of course taxing the super-rich would help re-distribute more money as more money would be collected. That said it is a good in itself, as too much capital in the hand of fewer people creates a power imbalance.

cgarrad

Instead of taking money from the wealthiest the solution is for the middle-working class to work harder to attain more wealth.

Why sponge off others when you can create yourself?

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Instead of taking money from the wealthiest the solution is for the middle-working class to work harder to attain more wealth.

Why sponge off others when you can create yourself?

Are you saying the middle income workers - and entrepreneurs - are spongers?

We've moved into bat **** cuckoo land, now.

Duggys Housemate

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's a rather dramatic if. I'd be interested in hearing a description of the mechanism by which a mass famine would occur in the western world?

Because, pending such an "apocalypse", there will never be a large scale revolution of the kind you describe. People like Facebook and their iPhones too much. Any kind of revolution will risk the middle-class consumer lifestyle that most western people have become accustomed to.

It doesnt have to. I want the rich, particularly the idle rich, to be taxed more, in part, so those of us in the middle get taxed less. And spend more. This is, I understand, not what all the people who dont like the top 1 percent believe, some are anti-capitalist, some are just anti the super rich.

Jonny7

I know this one!.. they were going to St Ive's, not coming from!

creedp

Duck Soup wrote: »

The tenth man made a load of widgets. But his nine friends had no money to buy them. Without his customers, the tenth man is bankrupt, not wealthy.

Did he make them himself of did he get some of all of his friends to help him? This story also proves that the curse of the drink affects all social classes equally ...

Duggys Housemate

The other problem is trying to justify any morality on taxation if the figures for the total tax take are - legally, after avoidance measures:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

It would be like excusing mass murder for the rich and jailing the middle income and poor for life for littering.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

"Fallacy of tax the rich" thread merged into this one.

cgarrad

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The other problem is trying to justify any morality on taxation if the figures for the total tax take are - legally, after avoidance measures:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

It would be like excusing mass murder for the rich and jailing the middle income and poor for life for littering.

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

Tombo2001

cgarrad wrote: »

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

Go away facts, stop ruining it for us!!!!

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Ireland’s top 0.5% of earners, the 11,714 people who earned more than €275,000 in a year, paid almost 18% of all income tax, over €2bn in total. Their average tax rate was 27.5%.

Almost 770,000 people earned less than €17,000. Understandably, given tax credits, these workers paid a tiny amount of tax, €20m in total. Their average tax rate was about 0.5%.

So whats has that go to do with the statement from me you were quoting, or the general theme of this thread which is off-shore avoidance?

I fully believe that some PAYE taxpayers at around the €275,000 and more mark are paying their way, but as we know people much richer are going offshore. Those incomes are declared PAYE incomes, probably missing most of the earnings at the level, which dont have to be declared if abroad, and paying nothing.

This is, in fact, what you have been defending up until now. If one of your arguments, doesn't work, its ok, you have others.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So whats has that go to do with the statement from me you were quoting, or the general theme of this thread which is off-shore avoidance?

I fully believe that some PAYE taxpayers at around the €275,000 and more mark are paying their way, but as we know people much richer are going offshore. And paying nothing. This is, in fact, what you have been defending up until now. If one of your arguments, doesn't work, its ok, you have others.

Thats a complete mis-representation.

He didnt say some PAYE workers at €275k......you said that.

He said Ireland's wealthiest people.....those 12'000 people who earn more than €275k........all the way up to whoever it is that has the highest income in the state.........pay an average of 28%.

That completely contradicts your argument that the richest people are paying between 0% and 1%.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Thats a complete mis-representation.

He didnt say some PAYE workers at €275k......you said that.

He said Ireland's wealthiest people.....those 12'000 people who earn more than €275k........all the way up to whoever it is that has the highest income in the state.........pay an average of 28%.

That completely contradicts your argument that the richest people are paying between 0% and 1%.

We are talking about the super-rich. Not small fries in the Irish PAYE sector. In reality Ireland may have few super-rich, however we know top businessmen offshore - therefore they are not going to appear in those stats - thats the point of this thread. The term does not mean high middle income. In my post I gave a list of what people might earn at different levels, starting with just about middle income, and increasing tenfold each level.

I always suspected that some people really didnt really get how rich the super-rich are.

Here' a fact. €275,000 a year is not super rich. In fact the rich could hire someone on €275,000 i.e. a footballer hiring an accountant, and that rich person could himself - along with tens of others on the same salary - get get hired by the super-rich i.e. A rich Russian or Arab who owns their club.

The term super-rich is really the top 0.01 to 0.1 percent. Worldwide. Their incomes, and the tax they pay is what is in discussion here. Not above average earnings in Ireland.

In the UK for instance, all foreigners earning most of the earnings offshore pay 30K. Thats it. If you earn 100M a year, thats not much of a percentage.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We are talking about the super-rich. Not small fries in the Irish PAYE sector. In reality Ireland may have few super-rich. The term does not mean high middle income. In my post I gave a list of what people might earn at different levels, starting with just about middle income, and increasing tenfold each level.

I always suspected that some people really didnt really get how rich the super-rich are.

Here' a fact. €275,000 a year is not super rich. In fact the rich could hire someone on €275,000 i.e. a footballer hiring an accountant, and that rich person could himself - along with tens of others on the same salary - get get hired by the super-rich i.e. A rich Russian or Arab who owns their club.

The term super-rich is really the top 0.01 to 0.1 percent. Worldwide. Their incomes, and the tax they pay is what is in discussion here. Not above average earnings in Ireland.

In the UK for instance, all foreigners earning most of the earnings offshore pay 30K. Thats it. If you earn 100M a year, thats not much of a percentage.

Again the €275k figure........he said from €275k up. So that includes people like Michael O'Leary, Tony O'Reilly and so on. Super Rich. Are they not rich enough for you?

You said that people earning €500k a year pay 10% tax. That is not true in Ireland. Could you tell me what country it is true for?

The hypocrisy of this ....

Do you know anybody who works for Intel, HP, Pfizer, Bank of America in Ireland?

You are quite right that very wealthy people move overseas to reduce their tax bill.

The same way that companies do it.

You cant stop it unless you want to go over there to Switzerland and tell the local cantons to put up their tax rates. Good luck with that.

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Again the €275k figure........he said from €275k up. So that includes people like Michael O'Leary, Tony O'Reilly and so on. Super Rich. Are they not rich enough for you?

You said that people earning €500k a year pay 10% tax. That is not true in Ireland. Could you tell me what country it is true for?

The hypocrisy of this ....

Do you know anybody who works for Intel, HP, Pfizer, Bank of America in Ireland?

You are quite right that very wealthy people move overseas to reduce their tax bill.

The same way that companies do it.

You cant stop it unless you want to go over there to Switzerland and tell the local cantons to put up their tax rates. Good luck with that.

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

But the point of this thread is two parts:

1) To argue that rich tax payers - like O'Leary - pay more money. That is, say, a sixty percent tax on his income about a certain amount say - 200K. I am sangine about that. We never discussed figures.
2) More importantly the super-rich who are domiciled nowhere, or use the UK as a base, as a huge number do. These guys are a lot richer than O'Leary, and they pay the 30K on the worldwide income while living in the UK. Which makes them tax exiles from home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-16330000-question-will-proposed-tax-on-britains-superrich-really-force-them-to-leave-the-country-781519.html

Let me repeat. Is this moral:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

Obviously, the higher you go the more you can pay less tax.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And while you're at it, tell anyone you know who works for an Irish multinational that they are out of a job because you cant have your cake and eat it.

This thread is not about Ireland. If the world taxed people on more than five million a year at 90% then we would get rid of the power of the super-rich, but Ireland cant do it. The earnings of the managers in multinationals is nowhere near that.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But the point of this thread is two parts:

1) To argue that rich tax payers - like O'Leary - pay more money. That is, say, a sixty percent tax on his income about a certain amount say - 200K. I am sangine about that. We never discussed figures.
2) More importantly the super-rich who are domiciled nowhere, or use the UK as a base, as a huge number do. These guys are a lot richer than O'Leary, and they pay the 30K on the worldwide income while living in the UK. Which makes them tax exiles from home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-16330000-question-will-proposed-tax-on-britains-superrich-really-force-them-to-leave-the-country-781519.html

Let me repeat. Is this moral:

1) Earn 50,000 : 33%
2) Earn 500,000 : 20%
3) Earn 5,000,000 : 10%
4) Earn 500,000,000 : 0-1%

Obviously, the higher you go the more you can pay less tax.

We'll park the O'Leary example as he is PAYE small fry.......

On the subject of high earners.

Is it moral? No.

But lots of things arent moral. Is it any less moral that you and I spend more on a night out in Dublin than most Indians earn in six months? No thats not moral either.....but we somehow manage to live with the unjustness of it, unless you want to tell me you give all your earnings to charity.

The more relevant question is: what can you do about it. I dont think much.

Nobody is domiciled nowhere. Everyone is domiciled somewhere. And there a wealth of domiciles where people can go and pay zero tax (forgive the pun).

And I'd also like you say what your stance would be on Multinationals who are in Ireland for tax reasons.

Duggys Housemate

Tombo2001 wrote: »

We'll park the O'Leary example as he is PAYE small fry.......

On the subject of high earners.

Is it moral? No.

But lots of things arent moral. Is it any less moral that you and I spend more on a night out in Dublin than most Indians earn in six months? No thats not moral either.....but we somehow manage to live with the unjustness of it, unless you want to tell me you give all your earnings to charity.

The more relevant question is: what can you do about it. I dont think much.

And I'd also like you say what your stance would be on Multinationals who are in Ireland for tax reasons.

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. In the UK -where I do live for now - London has, because of the 30K tax for non-domiciled earnings- allowed the super-rich, and the rich i.e bankers to buy up huge swathes of the property. This means that housing is unaffordable to normal workers.

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian recently where he said people on £70K complained about not getting on the housing ladder. That's true. And house prices have increased during a recession - one which is now a double dip. Unlike Ireland, this is not a boom led bubble, but a structural market driven increase which wont reverse in a recession, because the recession is already here. It will keep most people out of the market for ever.

Jonny7

Here's an interesting one

Hollande wants to tax top earners up to 75%
http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/french-president-hollandes-plan-to-tax-rich-touches-nerve/

Obviously there's not much chance of this making it through, but if it did - would the government pull in more tax than it does under its current system.. or less tax due to all the high earners getting "ze ****" out of France.

Chuck Stone

On topic as regards the super-rich shaping the world how they see fit.

US Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, revealed for the first time in Senate testimony Tuesday that at least twenty-three billionaire families have contributed a minimum of $250,000 each so far in this year’s campaigns.

(1. of 25) Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Las Vegas Sands Casino, is worth nearly $25 billion, making him the 14th wealthiest person in the world and the 7th richest person in America ... Forbes recently reported that Adelson is willing to spend a “limitless” amount of money or more than $100 million to help defeat President Obama in November.

commondreams.org

It would be interesting if we could get a break down of what the purpose of the contributions are - I doubt much or any of it is about turkeys voting for Christmas.

Tombo2001

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. .

Not true, you cant avoid paying the tax on a huge income without having the huge income in the first place. So tax avoidance excarbates the problem, not causes it.

As regards the former "I dont care about corporate tax"......I dont see how you can take a position on one and not on the other, as the same argument applies to both.

Ireland has made vast amounts by offerring tax breaks to multinationals. Do you think this should be reversed?

cgarrad

Off shore is non domicile with regard to income tax. If you don't live here why should you pay tax. Doubt any one here would pay a tax demand from Spain due to them being on holiday there?

golden lane

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I never go out in Dublin :-)

Actually I don't care about corporate tax. Personal taxation is more important as it creates clear divisions in how people live. In the UK -where I do live for now - London has, because of the 30K tax for non-domiciled earnings- allowed the super-rich, and the rich i.e bankers to buy up huge swathes of the property. This means that housing is unaffordable to normal workers.

Ken Livingstone had a piece in the Guardian recently where he said people on £70K complained about not getting on the housing ladder. That's true. And house prices have increased during a recession - one which is now a double dip. Unlike Ireland, this is not a boom led bubble, but a structural market driven increase which wont reverse in a recession, because the recession is already here. It will keep most people out of the market for ever.

did ken mention his tax dodges .......legal yes.....but morally wrong for a man who continuesly goes on about a fair society......

yes, he wants it (or so he says) so long as other people pay for it...

he is a genius at spending other people money...while saving his own..

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

Off shore is non domicile with regard to income tax. If you don't live here why should you pay tax. Doubt any one here would pay a tax demand from Spain due to them being on holiday there?

it depends on how long I was on holiday there. Fact is, of course that the rich - born in a country, living there, having their kids schooled there etc. can by judicious planning of their bedtime arrangements pay tax somewhere else. Nobody is denying this is legal, it is however wrong.