Tax the rich

Icepick · 12-09-2012 06:20PM

mollymosfet wrote: »

But they don't. Again, how do you explain the fact that taxes on the rich, in the US for example, are at an all time low, yet this has not lead to more jobs than were present in the 70s when there was a very high tax rate?

The high tax rates are a myth because nobody paid them.

Monty Burnz · 12-09-2012 06:24PM

Icepick wrote: »

The high tax rates are a myth because nobody paid them.

It was these tax rates that created the whole Ansbacher culture. I'm inclined to wonder whether fiddling your taxes is a 'gateway' white collar crime.

Chazz Michael Michaels · 12-09-2012 06:51PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

You've picked that point out of the wider context of my post really; a large percentage of managerial/executive positions can't just up and move out of the country over a short period of time, to similar jobs with the same income elsewhere.

Why though? What are you basing this on? Be honest.

KyussBishop · 12-09-2012 09:59PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Most of high earners are working or in MNCs or in state owned companies (banks, ESB etc). While Irish companies won't be able easily transfer high pay jobs abroad, multinational s won't such problems. Could you remind us what high taxes achieved 30 years go?

Again, we are talking about income tax not corporate; multinationals aren't just going to up and move out of Ireland due to higher income tax, and there's little indication they'll up and move the jobs either (they still need managers after all, and why shut down a profitable enterprise in Ireland?).

If you make a claim saying otherwise, you need to back that up with something.

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

You've picked that point out of the wider context of my post really; a large percentage of managerial/executive positions can't just up and move out of the country over a short period of time, to similar jobs with the same income elsewhere.

Why though? What are you basing this on? Be honest.

Eh, you're making the claim they will move; what are you basing that on? (burden of proof here does lie with you)

Are you suggesting that entire companies will up and leave (or just shut down), or that companies dependent on their managers/execs will continue on without any managers/execs? (be honest now..)

Chazz Michael Michaels · 12-09-2012 10:02PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, we are talking about income tax not corporate; multinationals aren't just going to up and move out of Ireland due to higher income tax, and there's little indication they'll up and move the jobs either (they still need managers after all, and why shut down a profitable enterprise in Ireland?).

If you make a claim saying otherwise, you need to back that up with something.

Eh, you're making the claim they will move; what are you basing that on? (burden of proof here does lie with you)

Are you suggesting that entire companies will up and leave (or just shut down), or that companies dependent on their managers/execs will continue on without any managers/execs? (be honest now..)

No it doesn't, since you were making the claim. The fact that you don't know that means that I am going to stop following this thread.

Waste of time.

Monty Burnz · 12-09-2012 10:14PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, we are talking about income tax not corporate; multinationals aren't just going to up and move out of Ireland due to higher income tax

Simplistic thinking - many high-skilled jobs attract people from around the world. Think Google HQ, for example. If companies find they can't attract the right people due to reduced take-home pay, or they are forced to increase salaries to compensate for these increased taxes, they may well shut up shop and open in a more friendly business environment.

KyussBishop · 12-09-2012 11:02PM

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

No it doesn't, since you were making the claim. The fact that you don't know that means that I am going to stop following this thread.

Waste of time.

I am saying that a significant percentage of high earners won't just up and leave, that there won't be enough jobs available to them to make it amenable for leaving, and their jobs can be refilled here (avoiding/ameliorating most potential negative effects of the increased taxes).

I've outlined the basis of why I think that, yet you argue they will leave; if you argue that, that requires taken on the burden of proof, it can't just be asserted.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Simplistic thinking - many high-skilled jobs attract people from around the world. Think Google HQ, for example. If companies find they can't attract the right people due to reduced take-home pay, or they are forced to increase salaries to compensate for these increased taxes, they may well shut up shop and open in a more friendly business environment.

Tax is after salary, not something a business has to care about when taxation changes, particularly not high-earner tax, and a multinational is hardly going to leave Ireland and lose their corporation tax, to make up for a tax that only affects their workers (which will put the corporation significantly below previous earnings).

Monty Burnz · 12-09-2012 11:18PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Tax is after salary, not something a business has to care about when taxation changes, particularly not high-earner tax, and a multinational is hardly going to leave Ireland and lose their corporation tax, to make up for a tax that only affects their workers (which will put the corporation significantly below previous earnings).

AAAAGHGHGHGH.

Unbelievable. I'll try to make this simple: please flag at which number your understanding of my point breaks down.

1. Many companies rely on highly skilled, mobile workers (Google was the example)
2. Highly skilled mobile workers go where the pay is good (they are mobile)
3. Highly skilled mobile workers will be hit by higher taxes
4. This makes their pay less good (take home pay goes down)
5. They may leave and/or become harder to recruit as pay is less good
6. Companies will have to pay extra to recruit these highly skilled mobile workers (to restore after-tax pay levels)
7. This means companies' cost bases go up
8. If their cost base goes up, they may decamp to more business friendly economies

Ok? Now at what point does this thesis break down?

Seriously, this isn't even proper economics, this is basic common sense.

Welease · 12-09-2012 11:23PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Tax is after salary, not something a business has to care about when taxation changes, particularly not high-earner tax, and a multinational is hardly going to leave Ireland and lose their corporation tax, to make up for a tax that only affects their workers (which will put the corporation significantly below previous earnings).

I'm not going to divulge personal information, but that statement is not true as I have previously received considerable payments as part of schemes to cover personal income shortfalls by relocating to Ireland.
Corporations do take into account the effect of taxation/pension & other benefits for their staff, and in many cases will have to spend extra in order to attract staff to those locations.

The bulk of the corporations being mentioned here won't leave Ireland directly.. but as they are already based in multiple locations around the world, they simply don't expand operations in Ireland further because of the extra costs involved.

It's also worth noting, that many staff can and will be located close to where the senior management reside.. If you force those senior staff elsewhere, then there is a good chance that within 5 years the bulk of those staff will also have been moved to the new location (again something I have seen happen again and again in corporations).

hognef · 12-09-2012 11:52PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

[...] you drive high earners out of the economy (a particular danger for us as people can work in so many other countries) [...]

Who are 'us' in the quoted sentence? The Irish? Can the Irish work in other countries more easily than other nationalities? Which nationalities are you comparing with?

KyussBishop · 12-09-2012 11:55PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

AAAAGHGHGHGH.

Unbelievable. I'll try to make this simple: please flag at which number your understanding of my point breaks down.

1. Many companies rely on highly skilled, mobile workers (Google was the example)
2. Highly skilled mobile workers go where the pay is good (they are mobile)
3. Highly skilled mobile workers will be hit by higher taxes
4. This makes their pay less good (take home pay goes down)
5. They may leave and/or become harder to recruit as pay is less good
6. Companies will have to pay extra to recruit these highly skilled mobile workers (to restore after-tax pay levels)
7. This means companies' cost bases go up
8. If their cost base goes up, they may decamp to more business friendly economies

Ok? Now at what point does this thesis break down?

Seriously, this isn't even proper economics, this is basic common sense.

Maximizing condescension doesn't make your argument less flawed, particularly when you're deliberately ignoring half of my post: What multinational has more to lose from slightly increased spending on high-earners, than the hit they take losing low corporation tax?

Welease wrote: »

I'm not going to divulge personal information, but that statement is not true as I have previously received considerable payments as part of schemes to cover personal income shortfalls by relocating to Ireland.
Corporations do take into account the effect of taxation/pension & other benefits for their staff, and in many cases will have to spend extra in order to attract staff to those locations.

The bulk of the corporations being mentioned here won't leave Ireland directly.. but as they are already based in multiple locations around the world, they simply don't expand operations in Ireland further because of the extra costs involved.

It's also worth noting, that many staff can and will be located close to where the senior management reside.. If you force those senior staff elsewhere, then there is a good chance that within 5 years the bulk of those staff will also have been moved to the new location (again something I have seen happen again and again in corporations).

Okey fair point, though it is a stretch to say that entire companies will disappear due to it, as it doesn't make financial sense to do this in a productive market (though yes, it may slow expansion).

It seems unusual, that in the time (and expense) it would take them to move operations out of Ireland, workers that relocate would not just get replaced.

Also a wider point here (not directed at you, but a general point): Any assumption that business would suddenly run out of a supply of workers for the job positions, needs to be backed by proof as well.
There would need to be a very large exodus of high earning workers for a business to get to the point where it is looking at shutting down or permanently moving.

Particularly with the current level of unemployment, it seems unlikely that replacements could not be found.

Good loser · 13-09-2012 12:01AM

Welease wrote: »

I'm not going to divulge personal information, but that statement is not true as I have previously received considerable payments as part of schemes to cover personal income shortfalls by relocating to Ireland.
Corporations do take into account the effect of taxation/pension & other benefits for their staff, and in many cases will have to spend extra in order to attract staff to those locations.

The bulk of the corporations being mentioned here won't leave Ireland directly.. but as they are already based in multiple locations around the world, they simply don't expand operations in Ireland further because of the extra costs involved.

It's also worth noting, that many staff can and will be located close to where the senior management reside.. If you force those senior staff elsewhere, then there is a good chance that within 5 years the bulk of those staff will also have been moved to the new location (again something I have seen happen again and again in corporations).

Impressive stuff - practical and convincing.

Contrast the theoretician.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 12:06AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Maximizing condescension doesn't make your argument less flawed, particularly when you're deliberately ignoring half of my post: What multinational has more to lose from slightly increased spending on high-earners, than the hit they take losing low corporation tax?

There is no flaw in the argument - otherwise you would presumably have pointed it out. How many companies would be hit by this is hard to judge - if I had to guess, I would suggest service companies, particularly those that rely on intellectual property and R&D and have low levels of capital investment would be the most severely effected.

The obvious flaw in your logic is that you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Ireland is the only low-corporation tax economy. It isn't. The point has been made repeatedly that even high-tax France has a lower effective rate of corporation tax than we do. And corporation tax is only of many factors that determine an organisation's bottom line.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 12:13AM

hognef wrote: »

Who are 'us' in the quoted sentence? The Irish? Can the Irish work in other countries more easily than other nationalities? Which nationalities are you comparing with?

We can work in our first language in the USA (the largest economy in the world), the UK (seventh largest), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and several others. Compared with - say - the Danes who can work in...well, Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian are similar. If you combined all their economies, you are approaching the size of the Australian economy. Or compare with the French...who can work in some parts of Africa in their first language. Germans...can work in Austria or parts of Switzerland.

Can you cite another nationality who can move so easily to so many other countries with such a large aggregate market and have realistic prospects of well-paid work in their first language?

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 12:39AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There is no flaw in the argument - otherwise you would presumably have pointed it out. How many companies would be hit by this is hard to judge - if I had to guess, I would suggest service companies, particularly those that rely on intellectual property and R&D and have low levels of capital investment would be the most severely effected.

The obvious flaw in your logic is that you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Ireland is the only low-corporation tax economy. It isn't. The point has been made repeatedly that even high-tax France has a lower effective rate of corporation tax than we do. And corporation tax is only of many factors that determine an organisation's bottom line.

Yes I did point it out, the fact that any losses incurred can't hope to make up for the loss of corporation tax (maybe not even recovering the cost of moving the business for many years).

The specific benefits that French corporations need to make use of in order to have a lower effective corporate tax than Ireland, also heavily constrain the variety of business that is likely to consider leaving the country.

In general, the argument that increasing taxes on high earners, will make enough people (or corporations) leave to make the tax counterproductive, is severely lacking.
There's legitimate evidence and arguments of some negative effect, but far from enough to show the tax is not worth it..

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 12:40AM

Also another point: VISA's are another obvious limitation for non-EU countries, so the range of options are largely limited to the EU.

hognef · 13-09-2012 01:11AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

We can work in our first language in the USA (the largest economy in the world), the UK (seventh largest), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and several others. Compared with - say - the Danes who can work in...well, Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian are similar. If you combined all their economies, you are approaching the size of the Australian economy. Or compare with the French...who can work in some parts of Africa in their first language. Germans...can work in Austria or parts of Switzerland.

Can you cite another nationality who can move so easily to so many other countries with such a large aggregate market and have realistic prospects of well-paid work in their first language?

Well, to answer your question first: I agree that there aren't many nationalities that would fit into that category, but I don't agree that working in one's first language is the be all, end all that you make it out to be. Let me explain:

As you have correctly stated, a Dane would be able to use his first language in Norway and Sweden (not in Iceland, though, as Icelandic is too different).

What you have failed to account for is that, unlike Ireland, Denmark has a significant focus on teaching foreign languages, therefore most Danes (and other Nordic nationalities) would be reasonably competent in at least two foreign languages, the first being English. The second would normally be German (or to a lesser degree, French).

The Dane would hence be perfectly capable of working in any of the aforementioned English-speaking countries. In addition, he/she wouldn't need a lot of extra training in order to work through German (therefore Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc. are actually within easier reach than you might imagine).

Bottom line, for the Dane, is that he/she would actually have a larger selection of countries to work in than the Irish person.

The same applies to a significant number of nationalities that don't have English as their first language, but that do have it as their second (or third), precisely because so many of the world's larger economies speak English.

In conclusion, I would in fact argue that the Irish (and other English-speaking nationalities) are actually at a disadvantage compared to many other nationalities (particularly European ones), because they are generally limited to English-speaking countries (I can't think of many countries in which Irish would be useful). This is presumably a significant reason why Irish emigrants tend to move halfway across the world to find work in the US or Australia, rather than to the stronger, more stable, and much nearer Norwegian and German economies.

Farmer Pudsey · 13-09-2012 01:21AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

In general, the argument that increasing taxes on high earners, will make enough people (or corporations) leave to make the tax counterproductive, is severely lacking.
There's legitimate evidence and arguments of some negative effect, but far from enough to show the tax is not worth it..

History rell us different, we only have to look at Dell, it moved it production base out of Ireland because it could not compete with the construction industry for low skilled workers. Multinationals do not need a big labour force to avail of low coporation tax. As well alot of other countries are putting low coporation tax in place to attract them in.

The last time we had a recession we tried the high tax route it failed and then labour was way less mobile and you could not travel from Ireland to the UK and back for 100 euro's/week. High taxes also encourage the black economy and they also give a huge incentive to buisness's to fiddle VAT and Income Tax.

In countries that have high taxes ( the nordic countries) they have huge back up in medical, education , childcare etc. They can afford these because they are not overpaying there public servants also there citizen's tend to be honest. Paddy is different he has different moral fibre basicly history tells us he will avoid tax and use any and every method to keep as much income as he can.

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 02:15AM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

History rell us different, we only have to look at Dell, it moved it production base out of Ireland because it could not compete with the construction industry for low skilled workers. Multinationals do not need a big labour force to avail of low coporation tax. As well alot of other countries are putting low coporation tax in place to attract them in.

The last time we had a recession we tried the high tax route it failed and then labour was way less mobile and you could not travel from Ireland to the UK and back for 100 euro's/week. High taxes also encourage the black economy and they also give a huge incentive to buisness's to fiddle VAT and Income Tax.

In countries that have high taxes ( the nordic countries) they have huge back up in medical, education , childcare etc. They can afford these because they are not overpaying there public servants also there citizen's tend to be honest. Paddy is different he has different moral fibre basicly history tells us he will avoid tax and use any and every method to keep as much income as he can.

Dell is one company and they employed low skill earners though, not the high-income earners subject to discussion?

Most of your arguments there don't apply well to the high-income tax discussion.

Fair point though that multinationals do not need much activity here to avail of corporation tax; however though, it seems as if it would take a big shift in profitability and/or worker availability to push them out of Ireland, if it is still a productive market.

Diarmuid · 13-09-2012 09:11AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you disagree with me, you have to show the loss caused by such a tax, will be greater than the gain.

You claimed

it doesn't matter if high earners disappear, if someone else takes their job and thus income (which is still taxed at the higher rate).

I disproved that assertion by example.

Now you change the goalposts. How about you prove your theory instead?

Diarmuid · 13-09-2012 09:14AM

And can someone who is proposing a tax on the "rich" please define rich? Income, assets or both and how much of each?

Welease · 13-09-2012 09:43AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Maximizing condescension doesn't make your argument less flawed, particularly when you're deliberately ignoring half of my post: What multinational has more to lose from slightly increased spending on high-earners, than the hit they take losing low corporation tax?

Okey fair point, though it is a stretch to say that entire companies will disappear due to it, as it doesn't make financial sense to do this in a productive market (though yes, it may slow expansion).

It seems unusual, that in the time (and expense) it would take them to move operations out of Ireland, workers that relocate would not just get replaced..

It's not specifically that companies would make a decision to instantly relocate from Ireland due to a taxation issues (unless of course we moved Corp. tax to 100% or something daft), it sets an series of connected events together which might cause a business to expand or contract, and what starts as a simple contraction due to one division expanding elsewhere can continue with other divisions/departments following suit. As a simple example, if Factory operations at a company decided to relocate elsewhere, then many of the supporting functions IT, HR, Finance, Canteen staff, Cleaners, Security etc etc will eventually relocate or reduce to the locally required amount. It will be a small amount of people (high earners) who will decide where to locate a factory, and depending on the taxation plans in place you can end up forcing them to be more inclinded to look elsewhere..

On the language front (which someone else) mentioned, I find it less and less a major point when expansions or contractions occur, as most multinationals (or at least ones Euro/US) will work in English, and finding English speaking (secondary language.. but perfect English) is not difficult.. To use Intel as an example again, off the top of my head they have European offices (several in some countries) in Ireland, UK, Italy, Germany, Poland, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Egypt, Turkey,
Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Portugal etc etc.. of various sizes.. Many functions have been moved around those countries previously with ease, and will continue to do so as requirements dictate.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also a wider point here (not directed at you, but a general point): Any assumption that business would suddenly run out of a supply of workers for the job positions, needs to be backed by proof as well.
There would need to be a very large exodus of high earning workers for a business to get to the point where it is looking at shutting down or permanently moving.

Particularly with the current level of unemployment, it seems unlikely that replacements could not be found.

But thats not the point (I know it wasn't directed at me, but..

) it's those high earners that make the decisions on where functions will be located (and obviously where the jobs will be required), and many of them will make those decisions based on their comfort zone (which is why when new managers take over you often see a large shift in direction and scope etc.).. If you implement a tax regime that they feel (irrespective of whether they are right or wrong) is unfair on them they will potentially decide to locate themselves and those functions elsewhere over time. Simply put, the replacements will not be needed as the jobs wont be located here anymore.. The same outcome as (but for different cost reasons) why we saw many companies pick up their business and relocate to Poland etc over the first few years of the bust here.. There was plenty of trained workforce available here, but those senior staff decided that the financial benefits of moving elsewhere were worth it.

Thats not to say they we shouldn't have higher tax rates.. We should look into every option.. I'm just pointing out that no decision made will ever have no potential negative ramifications.. If you push too much in any direction you will see a reaction, and that potential reaction needs to be understood and comprehended as part of the decision.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 09:51AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also a wider point here (not directed at you, but a general point): Any assumption that business would suddenly run out of a supply of workers for the job positions, needs to be backed by proof as well.

I love your notion that 'workers' are completely homogeneous and can be swapped in and out of an organisation like machine parts. Does it not occur to you that the best people (for those jobs) are currently in situ, and if you chase out the best people with higher taxes, you are replacing them with the second-raters? Do you think companies are more likely to succeed with excellent staff or merely good staff? Which has the competitive advantage? Are companies more or less likely to hang around/establish themselves in areas where they can't hire the best people?

As I've said, this stuff isn't even economics - it is common sense.

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 02:10PM

Diarmuid wrote: »

You claimed

I disproved that assertion by example.

Now you change the goalposts. How about you prove your theory instead?

You did not disprove that, you proved it is not true in all cases (where I did not assert it was); you have not shown the losses incurred by people similar to your example, are greater than the benefit.

Welease wrote:

It's not specifically that companies would make a decision to instantly relocate from Ireland due to a taxation issues (unless of course we moved Corp. tax to 100% or something daft), it sets an series of connected events together which might cause a business to expand or contract, and what starts as a simple contraction due to one division expanding elsewhere can continue with other divisions/departments following suit. As a simple example, if Factory operations at a company decided to relocate elsewhere, then many of the supporting functions IT, HR, Finance, Canteen staff, Cleaners, Security etc etc will eventually relocate or reduce to the locally required amount. It will be a small amount of people (high earners) who will decide where to locate a factory, and depending on the taxation plans in place you can end up forcing them to be more inclinded to look elsewhere..

I understand your argument, but it's still the case that for most business, they would be deciding to take a big hit on corporation tax; and if managerial/executive losses are the motivation for this, they could simply up managerial/executive salary instead.

Whatever way you look at it, the loss from increased high-earner taxes looks extremely unlikely to trump corporate tax; not unless the business is slim on profit margins to begin with (or is in a specialist industry that can take advantage of specific corporate tax breaks elsewhere).

Welease wrote:

On the language front (which someone else) mentioned, I find it less and less a major point when expansions or contractions occur, as most multinationals (or at least ones Euro/US) will work in English, and finding English speaking (secondary language.. but perfect English) is not difficult.. To use Intel as an example again, off the top of my head they have European offices (several in some countries) in Ireland, UK, Italy, Germany, Poland, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Egypt, Turkey,
Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Portugal etc etc.. of various sizes.. Many functions have been moved around those countries previously with ease, and will continue to do so as requirements dictate.

Indeed I don't see language being an overly problematic issue, but an additional issue for non-EU countries are VISA's and achieving permanent residence; it constrains things a bit more to EU areas (which is still diverse enough a place to look).

Welease wrote:

But thats not the point (I know it wasn't directed at me, but.. ) it's those high earners that make the decisions on where functions will be located (and obviously where the jobs will be required), and many of them will make those decisions based on their comfort zone (which is why when new managers take over you often see a large shift in direction and scope etc.).. If you implement a tax regime that they feel (irrespective of whether they are right or wrong) is unfair on them they will potentially decide to locate themselves and those functions elsewhere over time. Simply put, the replacements will not be needed as the jobs wont be located here anymore.. The same outcome as (but for different cost reasons) why we saw many companies pick up their business and relocate to Poland etc over the first few years of the bust here.. There was plenty of trained workforce available here, but those senior staff decided that the financial benefits of moving elsewhere were worth it.

Ya but, as addressed above, the management location decision argument is a relatively weak one

especially where multinationals who do not have headquarters in Ireland are concerned, where it's less likely for company in Ireland to have much influence in those decisions anyway.

Still, even discounting that it doesn't seem likely that packing up and moving is less costly than just increasing managerial salaries.

Welease wrote:

Thats not to say they we shouldn't have higher tax rates.. We should look into every option.. I'm just pointing out that no decision made will ever have no potential negative ramifications.. If you push too much in any direction you will see a reaction, and that potential reaction needs to be understood and comprehended as part of the decision.

Absolutely, there will be some negatives, though a lot of posters don't seem to engage with arguing how such negatives might outweigh the gain; what seems to be missing in replies to my posts in general, is that they are all grounded in the context that any negatives or exceptions to my arguments, do not outweigh the gain.

That is really my wider argument that people are not engaging in, focusing instead on specific exceptions to the arguments I make (where I didn't apply those arguments so absolutely in the first place), instead of taking it in context.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 02:20PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Absolutely, there will be some negatives, though a lot of posters don't seem to engage with arguing how such negatives might outweigh the gain; what seems to be missing in replies to my posts in general, is that they are all grounded in the context that any negatives or exceptions to my arguments, do not outweigh the gain.

That is really my wider argument that people are not engaging in, focusing instead on specific exceptions to the arguments I make (where I didn't apply those arguments so absolutely in the first place), instead of taking it in context.

And I would suggest that, lost amongst all your demands that others provide proof for their claims, must be the evidence that you posted somewhere for your claim that there would be gains at all.

I'll have a look back at your posts and see if I can find it.

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 02:24PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I love your notion that 'workers' are completely homogeneous and can be swapped in and out of an organisation like machine parts. Does it not occur to you that the best people (for those jobs) are currently in situ, and if you chase out the best people with higher taxes, you are replacing them with the second-raters? Do you think companies are more likely to succeed with excellent staff or merely good staff? Which has the competitive advantage? Are companies more or less likely to hang around/establish themselves in areas where they can't hire the best people?

As I've said, this stuff isn't even economics - it is common sense.

How is your notion that workers are infinitely mobile any more realistic? (I suppose none of the workers have any social, familial, property or other ties to Ireland?)
At least my argument is drawn from a gigantic pool of unemployed people, where the chances of finding (highly-willing) replacements is high; your argument is drawn from a universally-lacking supply of jobs, where you posit a very significant number of workers are going to magically find jobs and move away.

There is no 'common sense' to your arguments when you ignore the wider context of my arguments; you have not even engaged with the part of my argument, that says the benefits of such a tax outweigh the losses.
I've outlined many arguments that severely limit the likelihood of such an exodus of workers, and thus the potential losses; you seem to be implicitly claiming that the loss will outweigh the gain, without any arguments specifically backing that.

Arguments thus far, have largely been in pointing out exceptions to the arguments I make, where I did not posit those arguments were universally applicable anyway (but that they do apply to a significant number of affected workers/corporations); when considering the exceptions, my arguments still heavily constrain the extent of the negative effects posited, making the losses from them less likely to outweigh gains.

So, what are you arguments that explain how any of the negative effects posited, will outweigh overall gains from the tax? (especially considering the limitations put in place by my arguments)

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 02:27PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And I would suggest that, lost amongst all your demands that others provide proof for their claims, must be the evidence that you posted somewhere for your claim that there would be gains at all.

I'll have a look back at your posts and see if I can find it.

Yes, obviously the gains will be an immediate increase in tax gains from high-earner workers; if you make counterclaims that workers/corporations will start leaving etc., you need to show (both that that will happen, and what quantity) and how that will outweigh the immediately obvious gains.

Welease · 13-09-2012 02:29PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Absolutely, there will be some negatives, though a lot of posters don't seem to engage with arguing how such negatives might outweigh the gain; what seems to be missing in replies to my posts in general, is that they are all grounded in the context that any negatives or exceptions to my arguments, do not outweigh the gain.

That is really my wider argument that people are not engaging in, focusing instead on specific exceptions to the arguments I make (where I didn't apply those arguments so absolutely in the first place), instead of taking it in context.

But .. and this is a BIG but.. there is no context just a high level opinion with no specific detail (and counter arguements like mine with high level and little detail).. hence the circular arguements, there is essentially nothing of substance to debate..

A statement like tax the rich means nothing.. what income is "rich"? which assets are we talking about? How many people fit that segment? How much tax are we talking about? How much can be raised? What is the cost to business etc etc etc..

Once that is established as an arguement, then proper contextual counter arguements can begin around costs, benefits, negatives and loopholes (of which there will be many).

At the end of the day.. any implementation of a tax will have to be specific otherwise it doesn't exist.. You cannot state there will be a gain without knowing the answers to the questions above...

KyussBishop · 13-09-2012 02:31PM

Okey, lets say a 90% tax on income over €100,000, just to pin the argument down somewhat; that would largely cover executive/managerial/asset income I would think.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2012 02:36PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

How is your notion that workers are infinitely mobile any more realistic? (I suppose none of the workers have any social, familial, property or other ties to Ireland?)

If you can't quote the post where I said that workers are 'infinitely mobile', I suggest that you are creating straw men and arguing in bad faith, and to be honest I can't be arsed wasting my time on people who do that.

Tax the rich

Comments