Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's impossible to debate coherently about an issue that economists, advisors, experts, etc have been going over in much more depth for decades - we're not going to come up with some cut-and-dried solution on an internet forum

We're in a recession; the usual pitchforks will come out for the rich.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen famously observed that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a liberal democracy. Millions of children in the Third World die of malnutrition not because of the yacht-purchasing habits of Western billionaires, but because they live under tin-pot socialist governments whose Dear Leaders use their economies as personal ATMs while people starve. Again, the root cause comes down to lack of economic freedom.

Maybe that's also to do with the social liberalism or the democratic nature of liberal democracies and less to do with low regulation liberal capitalism? Maybe no famines have occurred because of strong state subsidies (especially when crops fail), state agencies controlling and combating diseases and things like foot and mouth? State spending into research that has borne fruit in modern agricultural practices and technology. Maybe it's to do with strong state support systems and welfare nets?

Can you point to the many cases in which increasing economic freedom has plunged the majority of the population into "abject misery"?

Correlation does not equal causation. There could be numerous mediating or moderating variables at play.

Perhaps as a country and an elite coterie in a country get richer they push for more economic libertty so they can ring fence their wealth and get even richer? Maybe countries that have good state infrastructure and supports, where people are democratically free to exercise their will, can then afford economic liberty rather than your picture of economic liberty being the driver of health and happiness. Perhaps in those tin pot dictator countries economic liberty would mean a flight of capital and collapse of the country. Therefore stability and democracy would be the precursor and driver of economic liberty.

My point is, you have little evidence for your belief in the markets as God, but that's how dogmatic religions usually go.

Can you give an example of where increasing economic liberty alone has caused a decrease in misery?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This line of reasoning reminds me of Vincent Browns' recent article on Denis O'Brien

In that letter I recalled a conversation with him some years previously during which we discussed his avoidance of £50 million capital gains tax by his change of domicile to Portugal and he defended his action by claiming that the Irish government would have misused the £50 million.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0808/1224321714191.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can't or at least shouldn't set yourself above the institutions of the state, or else you get situations like Peter Darragh Quinn deciding he doesn't want to go to jail because he doesn't agree with it.

The tax collecting powers of the state must be respected, and loopholes should be closed.im sure Dennis O'Brien used state funded services? He flies in and out of here using state supported airports, he travels on state built roads, watches state funded television and attended a state funded tribunal.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So nothing else changed in Hong Kong during this 'policy'?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fly_agaric

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps the rich people's mattress stash is flitting about hither and yon, chasing up bubbles and forever seeking the best return? The money is far from "idle", but that is not always a good thing either (hot money - is that the correct term??)

It would be better properly taxed imo.

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not illegal, it's a loophole

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not being a devotee of Cowperthwaites or Smiths or any other magic beans peddler, I'm not as versed in the history of 1940s and 50s Hong Kong but from a quick reading of Wikipedia there were many factors at play in the rise in Hong Kongs fortunes- migrants escaping persecution, investment from the British and the protection of British law, lack of manufacturing competition in region, and establishment of a special economic zone by China of bordering Shenzhen.

Throughout the British colonial era, Hong Kong was industrialized and improved in all aspects from its economy to its health care system. Many health facilities were built for its citizens

And funny how true this statement is from Cowperthwaites entry

Commentators have credited his management of the Hong Kong economy as a leading example of how small government encourage growth. However his starting of a large public housing programme which made the Hong Kong Government the world’s biggest landlord and the setting up of the Hong Kong Jockey Club as the region's monopoly in gambling business are rarely mentioned.

The construction of Shek Kip Mei Estate in 1953 followed a massive slum fire, and marked the beginning of the public housing estate programme designed to cope with the huge influx of immigrants

I'd imagine that'd decrease misery ay? Designed? Such a dirty statist intervention.

thecommietommy

Laminations wrote: »

You can't or at least shouldn't set yourself above the institutions of the state, or else you get situations like Peter Darragh Quinn deciding he doesn't want to go to jail because he doesn't agree with it.

The tax collecting powers of the state must be respected, and loopholes should be closed.im sure Dennis O'Brien used state funded services? He flies in and out of here using state supported airports, he travels on state built roads, watches state funded television and attended a state funded tribunal.

Exactly and the same Denis O’Brien did a deal with the former Anglo Irish Bank to purchase a company called Siteserv for €45 million. This sale saw €110 million of taxpayers’ money being simply written off by the bank in a manner which raises further serious questions about the links between this controversial businessman and politicians.

But then he's big friends with Enda and Gilmore, Fianna Fail nua.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0316/breaking10.html

Icepick

Laminations wrote: »

Hmmmm. Correlation does not equal causation.
...
Correlation does not equal causation.

it's actually MAY not imply for a reason

Icepick

thecommietommy wrote: »

Exactly and the same Denis O’Brien did a deal with the former Anglo Irish Bank to purchase a company called Siteserv for €45 million. This sale saw €110 million of taxpayers’ money being simply written off by the bank in a manner which raises further serious questions about the links between this controversial businessman and politicians.

But then he's big friends with Enda and Gilmore, Fianna Fail nua.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0316/breaking10.html

So government interference is actually bad, eh?

Canvasser

Icepick wrote: »

So government interference is actually bad, eh?

When it's a FF or FG government then it usually is

Cheerful Spring

The super rich own everything, so the only way you can change something is by a revolution. People their living standards today aren't as bad as centuries ago. People will just take it today unfortunately and not speak up. Only when is so bad nobody can even afford to eat will the super rich be at risk of losing everything.

2% of our population own everything and the other 98% fight for the scraps. If that isn't a messed up world i don't know what is.

Cheerful Spring

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs. People working in these jobs pays taxes too. Rich also pays a lot of taxes while maintaining their super rich life. Average Joe buys Toyota corrolla where super rich buys Bugatti. How many toyotos you have to sell to get the same tax on a bugatti? List can grow with properties, vat receipts etc etc. In short rich contributes to society too.

Super rich are super rich because they don't care about jobs. If they cared jobs wouldn't be moving from one country to the next. The care about making money thats why their super rich. They also avoid taxes the majority of the super rich. Just look at Romney ( a wealthy billionaire businessman) who is unable to produce 5 years of tax returns. This going to be a major issue coming election debate time.

Icepick

Canvasser wrote: »

When it's a FF or FG government then it usually is

classic cause & effect confusion

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

2% of our population own everything and the other 98% fight for the scraps. If that isn't a messed up world i don't know what is.

You are again spreading the silly idea that wealth is limited and can only be shared and not increased.

Denerick

Icepick wrote: »

You are again spreading the silly idea that wealth is limited and can only be shared and not increased.

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

Channel Zero

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's impossible to debate coherently about an issue that economists, advisors, experts, etc have been going over in much more depth for decades - we're not going to come up with some cut-and-dried solution on an internet forum

If someone walked into a school classroom of 8 year old children and sat down and explained to them in simple language about this issue, then asked them for solutions; between them they'd be able to work out what to do in minutes.
It's not rocket science.

Anyway will leave these here in case anyone saw just part 1 of the interview with the lead author of the report.

Part 2: link
Part 3: link

Icepick

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

Who decides who deserves what share of the pie?

Good loser

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sick of these supposed 'gotcha' argument. Few people (Except maybe the odd Marxist here or there) would suggest that wealth is 'limited', as you mean it. Rather the prevailing economic orthodoxy of today is that increasing the size of the pie but doling out reduced portions to most people will still mean that most people will get more pie. This is simply untrue. You can increase the size of the pie and increase the size of the portions concurrently. All it takes is humane policy making on an international scale along with proper national regulation of business and general exploitation that often gets confused with entrepreneurship. You're going to have to try harder to make us sympathise with the poor plutocrat who has to deal with ungrateful peasants.

The problem is a lot less simple than you make out.

Money/wealth can be easily transferred across international boundaries.

Generally countries are free, independent entities that decide and control their individual tax policies. It is in each country's interest to have as many 'super-rich' as possible living within its territory; if they don't get a lot off them at least they will get a little. It is much easier for small countries to have benign tax policies for the super rich as these policies will have less beggar-my-neighbour visibility; large countries are less nimble and more ponderous in introducing changes.

As for Ireland 'taking on the super-rich' (non defined); that's a joke. Half our super rich dissappeared in the last five years. The other half are tax exiles and would become full exiles if chased hard enough. Realistically it is only possible for the large countries to chase the super rich as they have political muscle and economic leverage. Such as the Germans who paid bribes to get the names of tax dodgers in Switzerland; the US for years are pressing the Swiss authorities for help with cornering their super rich. Must remember many of the s rich are drug criminals or dictators/presidents (ex and current) who won't readily part with their loot.

As I said in an earlier post 'I wouldn't be arsed'.