Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Worth pointing out from the same IMF Fiscal Monitor:
"Most countries have room to enhance revenues from the taxation of immobile capital significantly. [...] Taxes on real estate or land are both equitable and efficient and remain underused in many countries."
That top rate of tax is just for income, by the time you tally up VAT, stamp duty etc it is way above that. The argument for maximising state tax revenues, for the arbitary justification and reasoning of 'inequality' is just and argument for making everyone more equally worse off.
Or the rich can pay their fair share of taxes and prevent the governments in the western world being overthrown.
"Surely, under capitalism, if firms that leave a market because they don't want to pay their share/taxes of the cost of keeping that society/market functional, then more efficient entrepreneurs will take their place."
Surely so - if firms were forced to pay their taxes in the jurisdictions their economic activity takes place in. But that would require this international cooperation that "has proved very difficult to implement".
TE is a bit negligent on this issue, as you point out.
Tax the hoarding of money after 3 months. Expatriating money is classified as hoarding. Bing money circulates without the need for interest, or inflation or dependency on growth.
Or tax people on this basis: require that individuals consume in one hour a number of calories of rice and beans equal to some small percent of any income they make. What they consume is tax free. The remainder of the food goes to the needy. The difference in calories consumed and uneaten is taxed at 80%. Family members pool consumption. Just pick a number like 1% of income.
At least this exercise drives home enormity of avarice of the hugely wealthy upon them.
"Without this international co-operation,... " Yes, well how hard has the Conservative government even bothered to try to encourage this over the past several years?
Ah, those poor rich. Exploited and underappreciated. Doing it tough.
Cry me a river. Taxes on the highest incomes are the lowest since WWII in almost any country, and the really rich pay consultants to shift their money abroad to not even pay those lowered contributions to the upkeep of civilized society. The incomes of the rich have soared, briefly interrupted by the GFC, but merrily on the way up again. Hardly the group that is suffering most in the UK, or anywhere.
If most of the civilized world had a brain socialism would be the crime it it is and encourages...why not use a consumption tax, it encompasses more of the tax base, it is efficient and it does not sponsor tax discrimination or social warfare...with a right to let the citizens have a say in the rate of tax budgets to be determined and politicians held accountable.....progressive and tier taxation is a crime, it's time to move on to the 21st century and act like we have a right to keep taxation in line.......Communism is just another word for criminal.....
It's rather convenient for some, and particularly misleading claiming that the top income tax rate in the UK is 45%. In fact it's much higher because they should include National Insurance contributions. Despite it's name and premise, in reality it's just an income tax and could/should easily be rolled in to general income tax.
Then of course for bigger earners there are stealth taxes, like loss of the personal exemption or loss of 30 hours of free day care, and a plethora of other 'benefits'. It's unpopular to point out that the system is unfair in many directions, and Labour in particular are skirting around the truth when it comes to taxing the rich.
I generally pity the rich for over obsession with money over happiness.
But still people are angry because the rich get out of paying their fair share of taxes so public services can be funded. And if people feel resources aren’t fairly spread their nature is to throw all the toys out the pram.
Because a consumption tax, while efficient to collect, is hugely inefficient in achieving the aim of redistribution. Pretty basic Econ 101 there, matey.
Progressive and tier taxation is a crime? Only in your world. To everyone else, it's one of those rules put in place to keep the game reasonably fair.
Shhh, you're not supposed to ask such questions! We're not supposed notice such inaction, or to even think about changing the global financial system; it is 'impossible' to change that, anyway. Know your place, jgunnc!
The hyperlink to the IMF's fiscal monitor is broken.
The biggest lie in politics, trickle down economics. The rich in receiving tax breaks they don't need use the money to make even more money. A poorer person would put the money back into the economy where it helps everyone.
Why in the world would you grant corporations all the privileges of citizenship with none of the obligations???? What army are you going to hire to audit all the people who will flood to incorporate shell companies to hide personal income?
Why do you propose to squelch entrepreneurship when accumulated wealth in the hands the the few is the main force in establishing the loopholes that make the published income tax rates irrelevant to the richest few?
If you want to incentivize reinvestment of wealth hordes without penalizing hard workers, then:
- tie all government debt issuance to concrete projects -- i.e., do not bloat the general fund with endless debt.
- Progressively tax consumption
- Aggressively tax waste and pollution
- Aggressively tax "sins" to cover societal costs - tobacco being a prime example
- maintain localized property taxes at modest levels for home occupants, with marginally higher rates for those with multiple homes, short term flippers, or other absentee real estate speculators
- Immediately set capital gains income tax rate equal to labor rate for corporations and individuals
- over time ratchet down personal income taxation while leaving a modest corporate tax rate in place. Moreover, it is entirely wasteful for the government to police personal income taxation, but easy for corporations to do it.
Corporations will indeed pass on all taxation to the end consumer, however, if an open market is maintained, the end consumer has CHOICE in what corporation to do business with, and he will choose the most efficient provider of goods and services. The nominal income tax on corporations is a stabilization mechanism to ensure funding for infrastructure that corporations have higher disproportionate use compared to individuals.
If only what so wrote was true. Government bonds are most definitely NOT exclusively held by the rich, as the rich demand a higher rate of return and much more diversified investment portfolio.
Increasingly, US debt is snatched up by foreign governments in a desire to stabilize their own currencies. Uncle Sam is all too happy to accept their low-interest money. While indeed this makes the USA fat dumb and happy, it does not lead to debt default in the foreseeable future.
Quite the misleading statement there. According to Wikipedia, the total income of the top 1% wage earners is near all-time highs in the USA, close to 20% of the total GDP. Europe of course chooses not to follow this foolish direction.
So how is it that after-tax income of the top wealthy individuals rose 175% in a generation while household incomes of low wage earners have been flatter than Oklahoma? Did these elites do this through just hard work? Of course not. The rich employed lobbyists to enact favorable regulations and tax incentives for themselves.
In a rigged game where corporate executives line their pockets with obscene amounts of restricted stock units, multi-million dollar annual "performance bonuses" paid no matter how the company performs, and sickening golden parachutes that equate to winning the lottery when you fail -- it is absolutely incumbent upon the state to adopt some redistribution mechanism into its tax structures.
The past two generations have proven that no matter how many special breaks the richest few receive, they have not created jobs commensurate to their tax avoidance. Quite the opposite. In fact the tax avoidance by the richest few has led to huge employment shifts to Asia, which directly burdens western governments with increasing amounts of social costs. Not to mention the huge Superfund toxic waste sites and other exernalities that we just now are beginning to recognize and tally. Why do the rich not clean up their messes?
ajjamoia, you stated "... a consumption tax, while efficient to collect, is hugely inefficient in achieving the aim of redistribution."
That is a rather broad statement. There is always a way to institute a mathematical progressive curve to any tax scheme. Armchair tax experts always seem to promote some arbitrary percentage rate as being "fair", but the loopholes and exemptions have destroyed easy understanding of how the tax burden is actually shared.
The proof is in the pudding: while the poorer and working classes have seen their accumulated wealth stagnate in the past generation, the richest have dramatically expanded their holdings. This alone proves that the simple notional tax rate means absolutely nothing in a globalized world full of loopholes through which the richest few are easily able to hide their gains. Until this issue is tackled head on, all discussion of the "ideal" tax rate is pointless.
I propose that smarter and more comprehensive consumption taxes sans loopholes implemented with a highly progressive and transparent rate formula will drive inefficient companies and individuals to be less wasteful and possibly even invest in infrastructure renewal. That is a win-win for everyone.
@ RobS66 "The rich, in the US, anyway, pay almost all of the taxes"
The rich pay around 30%, the middle income group around 25%. So the rich pay slightly more, not "almost all".
If you're talking about absolute values, then of course those who own most of the country's wealth and siphon off almost all the country's income will pay considerably more. But nowhere near enough for a fair system.
If you have a problem with that, find me a rich person who will trade places with a poor person.
The rich usually do better in recessions too...