Brexit process

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

vtsnowedin wrote: Well you have to define what is a fair level of taxation and income.
I see a combined state, federal & local income tax rate of over 35% as unfair
After all a top combined rate of 25% would have someone making a billion dollars in a year paying $250 million dollars. That is progressive enough for me.
In the UK we have the (legal) minimum wage and the (advisory/recommended) living wage.
The levels paid need to be increased, but better than nothing. Not sure whether similar protection exists in the US ?

As for the top earners, I'd say that 25% is way too low. If you obtain (not make/earn) $1billion, and only pay $250million, that would still leave you with $750million - what on earth could you spend that on anyway ?
Also, you'd probably have a 'fancy dan' team of lawyers to help you avoid paying most/all of the $250million - guess you've been following Trump's tax situation ??

That's not to say that I agree with Communism either - there's plenty of room between the Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' US model and the old Soviet USSR.....
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

We only need a minimum wage because of the legislation introduced during the Thatcher and Reagan led capitalist counter revolution of the 1980's which emasculated the unions. Prior to that, the unions were able to force employers to pay reasonable wages. In the context of that emasculation, if there was no legally enforceable minimum wage in the UK, we would already be as bad as America is for low end wages. We are not that far behind the USA as it is.
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

Only some people had unionised jobs, although it may have had general pressure for workers wages. AFAIK the rot started with the aim to make income tax independent so there was no tax advantage for marriage. People are assessed as a couple for means tested welfare because they know that money is pooled. However income tax is each person because it lifts more dosh, and gives no advantage for marriage [they have recently reintroduced a tiny transferrable gimmick ~ £1000, so they are well aware what they did]. People on welfare are better off as single households. If one of a couple needs welfare, they are better off seperated. Couples with one wage-earner are clobbered. Apart from the loss of families, it provides another massive pressure for property.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P95-87.pdf

The politicians pretended it was about womens rights, but all that was needed was to recognise that a couple is A+B, not man and wife.
stumuz1
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:12 pm
Location: Anglesey

Post by stumuz1 »

Is the optimal Laffer curve for taxation about 17%?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Little John wrote:We only need a minimum wage because of the legislation introduced during the Thatcher and Reagan led capitalist counter revolution of the 1980's which emasculated the unions. Prior to that, the unions were able to force employers to pay reasonable wages. In the context of that emasculation, if there was no legally enforceable minimum wage in the UK, we would already be as bad as America is for low end wages. We are not that far behind the USA as it is.
People voted three times for Thatcher and again for Major because they were fed up to the back teeth with the trade unions which were trying to drag the UK down into the gutter so that there could be a communist takeover. The trade unions were the instruments of their own downfall. They cost the working man a fortune in lost wages when striking which they would never make up in increased pay and that was remembered for a very long time. Shame that LJ has forgotten.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Mark wrote:
As for the top earners, I'd say that 25% is way too low. If you obtain (not make/earn) $1billion, and only pay $250million, that would still leave you with $750million - what on earth could you spend that on anyway ?
Also, you'd probably have a 'fancy dan' team of lawyers to help you avoid paying most/all of the $250million - guess you've been following Trump's tax situation ??
Speaking about the US tax code as I have little knowledge of how the UK code compares to the US IRS regs. :
A person that gained a Billion$ in a year most certainly gained it through the stock price of the shares he owns in a company that he may have started and controls enough shares to direct the management of that company. The tax code lets him let those shares ride untaxed until he sells them when he will have to pay the capital gains tax on the difference on the original purchase (or creation) price and what he sells them for. This is deliberate to encourage people to keep their money invested in growing businesses to expand the economy. He only pays tax on dividends paid to him and capital gains tax on any shares he sells (at a profit) plus any ordinary salary paid without regard to the stock price.
In practice a rich person has a diverse portfolio of stocks and in any given year has some winners and some losers and when he needs money to pay the household bills or buy (off a soon to be ex wife) or a yacht or private jet etc. he sells some losers which will have zero capital gains tax owed he then pays the bills and reinvests any balance in some other stock he thinks will be a winner.
So a rich person can pretty much determine what tax if any they want to pay as long as their expenses are a small fraction of their stock holdings. This is how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate the his secretary.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Little John wrote:We only need a minimum wage because of the legislation introduced during the Thatcher and Reagan led capitalist counter revolution of the 1980's which emasculated the unions. Prior to that, the unions were able to force employers to pay reasonable wages. In the context of that emasculation, if there was no legally enforceable minimum wage in the UK, we would already be as bad as America is for low end wages. We are not that far behind the USA as it is.
People voted three times for Thatcher and again for Major because they were fed up to the back teeth with the trade unions which were trying to drag the UK down into the gutter so that there could be a communist takeover. The trade unions were the instruments of their own downfall. They cost the working man a fortune in lost wages when striking which they would never make up in increased pay and that was remembered for a very long time. Shame that LJ has forgotten.
I have forgotten nothing at all and am quit cognizant of the fact that the unions became, in some instances, their own worst enemy.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Little John wrote: I have forgotten nothing at all and am quit cognizant of the fact that the unions became, in some instances, their own worst enemy.
The times they were not the enemy of the members is a much shorter list.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Unions were a problem in the UK for about twenty years during the 60s and 70s but, as a result, still have problems recruiting members in many workplaces. They can now be pretty ineffectual but much of the legislation which was bought in was welcomed to stop their abuses of the power that they had gained.

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way but that is because of the abuses of their power which pissed off many a working man and woman resulting in four Conservative governments in a row.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
Mark
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:48 am
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

vtsnowedin wrote:So a rich person can pretty much determine what tax if any they want to pay as long as their expenses are a small fraction of their stock holdings. This is how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate the his secretary.
And you think that's something to be admired ?
Who pays for all the roads, social programmes and not forgetting the good 'ol military ?
The US system stinks.

That's one of the main reasons I was against Brexit.
The inevitable outcome is that we become much closer aligned to US economic models.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Mark wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:So a rich person can pretty much determine what tax if any they want to pay as long as their expenses are a small fraction of their stock holdings. This is how Warren Buffet pays a lower rate the his secretary.
And you think that's something to be admired ?
Who pays for all the roads, social programmes and not forgetting the good 'ol military ?
The US system stinks.

That's one of the main reasons I was against Brexit.
The inevitable outcome is that we become much closer aligned to US economic models.
I said nothing about admiring it. I just said that is the way it is.
The roads are paid for by the users through fuel taxes. as for income taxes a search has this pop up.
Image result for us percent of taxes paid by the rich
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes.
So the US systems stinks? Whose smells better? The UK?
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

But then the top 1% own 40% of the wealth against just over 20% for the bottom 90% so it looks like the top are doing very well thank you earnings and taxwise. Their earnings are 400 times the bottom and their disposable income is thousands of times, or maybe tens of thousands, that of the bottom.

And the UK is probably not far off that which is why I was making my point in the first place.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

If you read that quote again carefully you will realize that the top ten percent are paying 69.5% of the taxes with the very top 1% paying half of that. Meanwhile the entire remaining 90% pays 30.5% with many of those paying no income taxes at all and receiving numerous government payments directly or indirectly.
You are also falling for the erroneous notion that "The wealth" is a fixed sum and for a rich person to gain a larger share some poor person or persons has lost that same wealth.
In fact the total wealth is growing daily and almost everybody with any financial skills gains wealth year on year with the median net worth of $225,000 for a family headed by someone 65-75 years old.
As to the rich getting richer quickly you have to understand that much of that wealth is on paper only and can evaporate just as easily. Take for example Elon Musk of Tesla fame. His stock in Tesla has gone up some 400% this year and his paper wealth has grown by billions. But no one had to pay him those billions and all the other stockholders in Tesla at the beginning of the year have made out just as well. The only people that paid the current stock price are the ones that just bought in and set the current price. They have placed a bet and might well lose as sales and production of Tela's factories do not support the current price.
But again no one in the lower 90% lost any wealth to hand that gain to Musk and the Tesla stock holders. it is a new pie not a slice out of the old one.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12380
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

You have just illustrated what a ridiculous system we live in, VT, where much of the wealth produced is not actually worth anything to most people. When it comes down to it most of the wealth is not really worth anything to anyone as it can't be realised.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

Monetary wealth is just a lever or power. But, that only remains true so long as the majority is not materialized. Because, as soon as it is, we all get to find out how much it is really worth.
Post Reply