Tax the Rich

[Citizen Smith]

The British communists speak out on the super rich and capitalist corporations.
Communist Party of Britain - for peace and socialism (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?file=newsTemplate&story=290)

[Spades]

The British communists speak out on the super rich and capitalist corporations.
Communist Party of Britain - for peace and socialism (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?file=newsTemplate&story=290)

Tax dodging millionaires? This seems to be very.... misleading. May I ask that you maybe you just view no one should have a Million dollars? In other words you would like to control what people make and control who gets what. In other words structure life towards who can try the least and get away with it. Not reward those who take risks and try hard? I make these accusations because I don't know what gives you the right to take other's people money.

I've been told that the left isn't for the ideology that ends-justify the means but that they follow just-means philosophy. But it seems that the Tax the rich plan is somewhat contradictory.

Explain?

[Citizen Smith]

If everyone in the world had all they need, I wouldn't mind some people being richer than others- until then- those who need it should get it, those who don't should have it taken away.

[Albion 69]

If everyone in the world had all they need, I wouldn't mind some people being richer than others- until then- those who need it should get it, those who don't should have it taken away.

I assume you practise what you preach and as soon as find you have some excess food clothes or money you are straight down the charity shop :)

[Thoreau]

If everyone in the world had all they need, I wouldn't mind some people being richer than others- until then- those who need it should get it, those who don't should have it taken away.

There is benevolence in your stance, but it will always be overshadowed by naivety, dictatorial authoritarianism and the approach is not implementable.

Taking away someone's wealth to subside someone else's misfortune is morally flawed and unacceptable. It's unfortunate that there are people who find themselves living their lives in poverty, but poverty can be vanquished with determination and the commitment to succeed.

[exbiker]

Tax the rich? well that says it all, the british hate winners, why? maybe jealousy? I don't suppose if someone gave you a few million quid you'd consider giving it all away to the poor?
answer No = Normal
answer yes = Mentally ill

[pauli007001]

If everyone in the world had all they need, I wouldn't mind some people being richer than others- until then- those who need it should get it, those who don't should have it taken away.

The corporations you would tax,are they the Huge employers and companies who drive the economy?
Define rich,when i was a kid i thought people who wore new clothes and ate meat most days were rich!
As a soldier for 16 years i thaught teachers ans social workers and cops were rich.Firemen too(they went on strike for more cash we covered their jobs for less).
Today i earn a decent living,many have called me rich,i am not even if i were i earned it in a job most wouldnt do,a job that is slowly killing me!Why should i who may well have less than a dozen years to live be forced into artificial poverty to satisfy the lazy?On top of that i could be killed at any second of my day on site due to the nature of the job again i put my life on the line to see my income taken and given to a lazy idle sponger.Your philosophy is insane.To work and earn your income is freedom to have it taken away is slavery!With tax at 65% or more in the UK today dont you think it is time to start reducing ,not increasing peoples hardships withh even more excessive taxation?

[Citizen Smith]

The corporations you would tax,are they the Huge employers and companies who drive the economy?
Define rich,when i was a kid i thought people who wore new clothes and ate meat most days were rich!
As a soldier for 16 years i thaught teachers ans social workers and cops were rich.Firemen too(they went on strike for more cash we covered their jobs for less).
Today i earn a decent living,many have called me rich,i am not even if i were i earned it in a job most wouldnt do,a job that is slowly killing me!Why should i who may well have less than a dozen years to live be forced into artificial poverty to satisfy the lazy?On top of that i could be killed at any second of my day on site due to the nature of the job again i put my life on the line to see my income taken and given to a lazy idle sponger.Your philosophy is insane.To work and earn your income is freedom to have it taken away is slavery!With tax at 65% or more in the UK today dont you think it is time to start reducing ,not increasing peoples hardships withh even more excessive taxation?
taking from those who can Comfortably Afford It
And not everyone who is poor is lazy you know.

[Citizen Smith]

Why is everyone oppose to this?
Lets say you had 3 people on an Island. they all had different ways of trying to find food. One was more successful than the other two. he had food and plenty to spare. The other two had not enough to survive on.
Won't the well off person help the other two? Or are they lazy?
Is it slavery to tell one who has FAR more than he needs to spare a little to feed his neighbor?
Is it extreme?
Unreasonable?
Wrong?

[Thoreau]

taking from those who can Comfortably Afford It
And not everyone who is poor is lazy you know.

People should not be forced to hand over what they have undoubtedly earned or inherited, it is not democratic, but totalitarian.

A majority of the world's population is no longer tribal. Communism in theory is a splendid notion, in reality it cannot be implemented. Socio-Economics will always exist, and not living beyond your means doesn't not guarantee an end of poverty.

[Thoreau]

Why is everyone oppose to this?
Lets say you had 3 people on an Island. they all had different ways of trying to find food. One was more successful than the other two. he had food and plenty to spare. The other two had not enough to survive on.
Won't the well off person help the other two? Or are they lazy?
Is it slavery to tell one who has FAR more than he needs to spare a little to feed his neighbor?
Is it extreme?
Unreasonable?
Wrong?

You are hypothetically thinking, realistically when will there be three people inhabiting one Island? When the populace is small, it is easier to work together. Now times your notion by a billion and then by six billion and it is impractical.

It is not unreasonable to want to share your wealth with those who do not have the wealth you enjoy, but when a person works nine hours a day, has a family to attend to, then it becomes unreasonable to take the income the family earns and give it to someone else.

In theory it is a fantastic notion, but it is impractical and is unworkable.

[Dunkirk]

When the Labour government during the 1970's levied a top rate of tax at over 80% the well off just moved their money out of the way.

[Thoreau]

When the Labour government during the 1970's levied a top rate of tax at over 80% the well off just moved their money out of the way.

What is wrong with doing that? Why should they have their money taken away from them?

[Dunkirk]

What is wrong with doing that? Why should they have their money taken away from them?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I'm just pointing out the futility of attempting to tax high earners at such a punitive rate.

[pauli007001]

Why is everyone oppose to this?
Lets say you had 3 people on an Island. they all had different ways of trying to find food. One was more successful than the other two. he had food and plenty to spare. The other two had not enough to survive on.
Won't the well off person help the other two? Or are they lazy?
Is it slavery to tell one who has FAR more than he needs to spare a little to feed his neighbor?
Is it extreme?
Unreasonable?
Wrong?

Taxing the sucessfull is not equal to sharing with your islanders it is equal to the two inept hunter gatherers beating the succesfull one in order to take his food!That is of course assuming that he chooses not to share with his fellow islanders!
To apply punitive taxes against those who get ahead is extreme,unreasonable and wrong.It is also economically not viable!
Where would the motivation to get ahead come from if you knew that the fruits of your labour were going to be taken away?Why bother earning ,It would kill the economy!

[Spartacus]

We do tax the rich , not as much as we should imo , but they also know all the tricks to avoid paying them . I mean this isn't even hidden. Take the Isle of Man for instance it's just an offshore tax swerve and nobody seems to pay any attention to it.

It is an old ploy of the detractors of Socialism to talk of the stealing of wealth , the death of initiatives etc etc but there is very much more to the ideology than just the usual money questions.

Here is an article written by George Carlin the American comedian....... if I were any good at putting my thoughts into words this is very much like how it would sound and it is the reason why I am a socialist. It's not just about wealth distribution it is about the condition of human relations under a nothing but self attitude.


The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but
shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbour.
We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've done larger things, but not better things. We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice.
We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes.
These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill.
It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.

Remember; spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever. Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only pleasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.

Remember, to say, "I love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again. Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.




http://www.psychicsahar.com/artman/images/set1_maple/spacer.gif

[pauli007001]

I recently sent a gift to my Daughter,a watch.I paid $100 for it,50 quid given the current ex rate!A new law was enacted some 12 months ago that mailed items over the value of 36 quid would be subject to a customs charge(TAX)and a handling fee(i thought that was what postage was for)!
My Daughter is a mother t a 3 year old,her other half(the waster as i call him)is a bartender,who only shows up for work when he feels like it,usually using a backache as an excuse!They have no money,no luxuarys yet they have to pay this tax on a gift?Tax is always wrong ,but more so when it is used to deny the poor any luxuaries,they may say tax the rich,but they always tax everyone!.The customs charge for being 14 qud over the limit was in fact 17 quid,that id over 100% of the difference,it is robbery and nothing less!Bet you love it though Smudge!?:confused:

[Borderscot]

The British communists speak out on the super rich and capitalist corporations.
Communist Party of Britain - for peace and socialism (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?file=newsTemplate&story=290)

What utter claptrap. The capitalist corporations employ millions of people who benefit from the wages and salaries and pensions. The majority of wealthy people invest in shares and many employees have shares in the companies that they work for. If the company is successful, they benefit. If a company is not making money then it pays no dividend and those who have invested in the company lose their investment. They are taking a risk by investing in the first place. Now, where are you planning to employ the millions of people who work in private enterprise?

[Spades]

We do tax the rich , not as much as we should imo , but they also know all the tricks to avoid paying them . I mean this isn't even hidden
Explain? Because last time I saw on the news out of all the money collected by taxpayers 96 perc was from the top 50 percentile. Strange.

[Officer Dibble]

Why is everyone oppose to this?
Lets say you had 3 people on an Island. they all had different ways of trying to find food. One was more successful than the other two. he had food and plenty to spare. The other two had not enough to survive on.
Won't the well off person help the other two? Or are they lazy?
Is it slavery to tell one who has FAR more than he needs to spare a little to feed his neighbor?
Is it extreme?
Unreasonable?
Wrong?

It works fine in theory.

Until the other two work out that they don't actually need to find food themselves and can just let the other do the work.

There is nothing wrong, imo, with inequality of wealth. There will always be inequalities and unfairness in the world and it is just something we have to deal with (the rich too!). Generally, those who are poor earn less because tey do a lower skilled job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but generally this is the way the world works and this is the model that Thatcher preached.

Yes there should be a safety net, but why should the better off, who often have families of their own to feed, support those who do either can't be bothered to get educated and get on in life or don't have the ability to? It's pure jealousy.

[Citizen Smith]

It works fine in theory.

Until the other two work out that they don't actually need to find food themselves and can just let the other do the work.

There is nothing wrong, imo, with inequality of wealth. There will always be inequalities and unfairness in the world and it is just something we have to deal with (the rich too!). Generally, those who are poor earn less because tey do a lower skilled job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but generally this is the way the world works and this is the model that Thatcher preached.

Yes there should be a safety net, but why should the better off, who often have families of their own to feed, support those who do either can't be bothered to get educated and get on in life or don't have the ability to? It's pure jealousy.
hmmmmmm... yes, there may be exceptions....:
Teacher Shareholder
Carer Invest
Miner Lawyer
Not really very fair.

[Borderscot]

hmmmmmm... yes, there may be exceptions....:
Teacher Shareholder
Carer Invest
Miner Lawyer
Not really very fair.

I do hope when you wake up from your deep sleep that you do not suffer from fright L O L:)

[Citizen Smith]

.............................
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/HILARY/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpghttp://www.wcml.org.uk/group/gfx/cartoon.gif

[Trystan]

What utter claptrap. The capitalist corporations employ millions of people who benefit from the wages and salaries and pensions. The majority of wealthy people invest in shares and many employees have shares in the companies that they work for. If the company is successful, they benefit. If a company is not making money then it pays no dividend and those who have invested in the company lose their investment. They are taking a risk by investing in the first place. Now, where are you planning to employ the millions of people who work in private enterprise?

The capitalist corporations dominate culture, rape the third world, employ child labour, aid in the suppression of unionism, provide bad conditions and pay, and generally shit on millions of people. They also dominate the "free market". But they "take a risk". How honorable of them. :rolleyes:

[Officer Dibble]

The capitalist corporations dominate culture, rape the third world, employ child labour, aid in the suppression of unionism, provide bad conditions and pay, and generally shit on millions of people. They also dominate the "free market". But they "take a risk". How honorable of them. :rolleyes:

Shush you, that's rubbish and you know it. If all these big, nasty corporations were state-owned we would all be worse off.

[Spades]

The capitalist corporations dominate culture, rape the third world, employ child labour, aid in the suppression of unionism, provide bad conditions and pay, and generally shit on millions of people. They also dominate the "free market". But they "take a risk". How honorable of them. :rolleyes:

They employ millions of people who would not have jobs otherwise. Dominate the free market? How so?

[GETUPTA SINGH]

Tax the rich ? isnt this just another term for the politics of envy? Get an education, get a job and work hard at it and you too could be rich! Something the commies of this world will never understand.

[Expounder]

What utter claptrap. The capitalist corporations employ millions of people who benefit from the wages and salaries and pensions. The majority of wealthy people invest in shares and many employees have shares in the companies that they work for. If the company is successful, they benefit. If a company is not making money then it pays no dividend and those who have invested in the company lose their investment. They are taking a risk by investing in the first place. Now, where are you planning to employ the millions of people who work in private enterprise?

Everyone who is in work or business is supposed to pay taxes, people who work have this deducted at source. Why should entrepreneurs like Philip Green and his ilk be allowed to set up offshore tax havens to syphon off all of the proceeds of profit he has made in this country without paying a penny?

If some one who worked for a wage or a salary or was self employed in this country tried total tax avoidance they would be fined or imprisoned. who said there was not one rule for the rich and one for the poor?:mad:

[Spades]

Everyone who is in work or business is supposed to pay taxes, people who work have this deducted at source. Why should entrepreneurs like Philip Green and his ilk be allowed to set up offshore tax havens to syphon off all of the proceeds of profit he has made in this country without paying a penny?

If some one who worked for a wage or a salary or was self employed in this country tried total tax avoidance they would be fined or imprisoned. who said there was not one rule for the rich and one for the poor?:mad:

Now I don't know how it is run in the UK but do you honestly think its the that the bottom 40 perc of incomes are the ones that pay the bulk of the taxes? Its not that way in the states and I can bet its not like that in the UK either!

[pauli007001]

Now I don't know how it is run in the UK but do you honestly think its the that the bottom 40 perc of incomes are the ones that pay the bulk of the taxes? Its not that way in the states and I can bet its not like that in the UK either!

Although the left whinge propeganda of for instance hilary clinton (before the american people and the democrats decided she was not right for prez)constantly states this misgiudes claptrap.Tax is paid by all in the US,in the UK many pay no tax at all,the dole dossers for instance or the benny addicted or the lazy,evryone else pays tax(even the muslims,to those who say otherwise)i pay tax in the UK even though i only live their a quarter of the time!!!!!

[Expounder]

Now I don't know how it is run in the UK but do you honestly think its the that the bottom 40 perc of incomes are the ones that pay the bulk of the taxes? Its not that way in the states and I can bet its not like that in the UK either!

Spades, just out of interest, can individuals, owners of large companies in the US, shift their unpaid tax profits out of the US into tax safe havens abroad?:confused:

[Marxist Nutter]

Now I don't know how it is run in the UK but do you honestly think its the that the bottom 40 perc of incomes are the ones that pay the bulk of the taxes? Its not that way in the states and I can bet its not like that in the UK either!

No, the bottom 40% pay a greater proportion of their income in tax, and they obviously have less income to live on. I mean think about it 2% of £300000000000000000 p/a is gonna be a lot more money that 20% of £10,0000 p/a (to use very extreme illustrative example). But the the 20% tax is gonna hurt the guy on £10,0000 much much more even if he is paying less money in real terms.

TAX THE RICH!

[JAMC]

Regardless of your personal views, I think most people would agree that something has to change. Take me as an example; I'm 24, earn a fairly good wage working in IT, and yet I find myself in a position where I'm preparing to found my own limited company, just so that I have a small chance of being able to purchase a home by the time I'm 30. Simultaneously, people and companies with capital purchase properties merely to speculate on their value.

That's not right.

[Spades]

Spades, just out of interest, can individuals, owners of large companies in the US, shift their unpaid tax profits out of the US into tax safe havens abroad?:confused:

Just out of interest where do these corporations get there money? From the consumers who buy the product. So by excessively taxing a corporation in some way to help the consumer is rather silly. Because the corporation will just make the consumer pay. Now, if you are just taxing like the makers of lets say rols royce (I can't spell) then it wouldn't hurt you the particular consumer but I am talking on an industry wide scale.

Now corporations can incorporate themselves into different countries who do not have all the taxes and restrictions that we do in order for them to get tax advantages and breaks depending on the state. Raising taxes isn't going to solve that problem when in fact it will hurt it.

[Spades]

No, the bottom 40% pay a greater proportion of their income in tax, and they obviously have less income to live on. I mean think about it 2% of £300000000000000000 p/a is gonna be a lot more money that 20% of £10,0000 p/a (to use very extreme illustrative example). But the the 20% tax is gonna hurt the guy on £10,0000 much much more even if he is paying less money in real terms.

TAX THE RICH!

You haven't shown any evidence that your percentages are right and where do you get this 2 percent? I frankly don't care that it 'hurts' the 10,000 because thats not an excuse to make the other guy pay a larger percentage. Its the 'he has it I want it so I'll find a way to get it attitude.' Its a selfish attitude imo and I'll have nothing to do with it!

[Marxist Nutter]

You haven't shown any evidence that your percentages are right and where do you get this 2 percent? I frankly don't care that it 'hurts' the 10,000 because thats not an excuse to make the other guy pay a larger percentage. Its the 'he has it I want it so I'll find a way to get it attitude.' Its a selfish attitude imo and I'll have nothing to do with it!

Do you understand the words 'illustrative example'? It is not selfish to make sure that everyone can have a decent standard of living while people enjoy unbelievable wealth. People are suffering, u cold hearted *******!

[ArminasAnarchy]

There is benevolence in your stance, but it will always be overshadowed by naivety, dictatorial authoritarianism and the approach is not implementable.

Taking away someone's wealth to subside someone else's misfortune is morally flawed and unacceptable. It's unfortunate that there are people who find themselves living their lives in poverty, but poverty can be vanquished with determination and the commitment to succeed.

Poverty can only be vanquished by equality...that sounds like communism to me ;)
Poverty is subjective to what is classed as "rich".
If I had a penny and everyone else had nothing, I'd be "rich"...but at the minute if I had a single penny I'd be very very poor.

[ArminasAnarchy]

Tax the rich? well that says it all, the british hate winners, why? maybe jealousy? I don't suppose if someone gave you a few million quid you'd consider giving it all away to the poor?
answer No = Normal
answer yes = Mentally ill

:/ So if you have a moral bone in your body you're mentally ill?

[ArminasAnarchy]

Tax the rich ? isnt this just another term for the politics of envy? Get an education, get a job and work hard at it and you too could be rich! Something the commies of this world will never understand.

How the hell are you meant to get an education if you can't afford to go to University? Or if you live in a deprived area and so the schools are awful?
Your idea only works if the starting line is equal and IT ISNT.

[ArminasAnarchy]

Do you understand the words 'illustrative example'? It is not selfish to make sure that everyone can have a decent standard of living while people enjoy unbelievable wealth. People are suffering, u cold hearted *******!

:D You said it mate!

[Spades]

Do you understand the words 'illustrative example'? It is not selfish to make sure that everyone can have a decent standard of living while people enjoy unbelievable wealth. People are suffering, u cold hearted *******!

Cold hearted? Thats the basic emotion that others try to invoke when confronted with examples that don't display the kind of fairness. Decent standard of living? In the US its not that hard to get a decent standard of living. What you mean is that no one can have a better standard of living than anyone else. Yes some people enjoy ridicilous luxuries but that doesn't give you the right to take it. Stop throwing around exaggerations. If your a child or mentally disabled then yes you deserve care. But for the able bodied, they need to work. How can you expect someone else to make the advancements, educate themselves through studying, take risks, devote their lives to things all so that you can just piggy back off of their achievement and then hold out your hand and say gimme. People can easily weave stories to make themselves look like the innocent victim. But in actuallity, its rarely the case.

Cold hearted? Possibly. I could care less for able workers who whine about how bad they have it and how they are owed something for no explainable reason. Its attitudes like this that really bother me. When they get stopped by the police for something theres always an excuse about how they were right or the police was a jerk. When there boss asks them to do something (Like there job) hes a jerk. Accept responsbility for your situation and work to better it. I've seen plenty of cases where people can change there stars. I am so f'ing tired of having to pick up someones slack for whatever reason. I never get to enjoy any good fortune because someone always wants to take it away (yes I cave to the begging). If you made this case for animals then I would be on your side, but for the human race who are heartless themselves and treat things such as animals like crap, who have more luxuries now then ever, who are way better off than there counterparts in Africa or Latin America, I do not care.

[Marxist Nutter]

Cold hearted? Thats the basic emotion that others try to invoke when confronted with examples that don't display the kind of fairness. Decent standard of living? In the US its not that hard to get a decent standard of living. What you mean is that no one can have a better standard of living than anyone else. Yes some people enjoy ridicilous luxuries but that doesn't give you the right to take it. Stop throwing around exaggerations. If your a child or mentally disabled then yes you deserve care. But for the able bodied, they need to work. How can you expect someone else to make the advancements, educate themselves through studying, take risks, devote their lives to things all so that you can just piggy back off of their achievement and then hold out your hand and say gimme. People can easily weave stories to make themselves look like the innocent victim. But in actuallity, its rarely the case.
e.

The majority of the world live in poverty. One person dies every 3 seconds from a poverty related condition. There is more suffering in the world than ever b4 in history. I was never talking about the US (this slippage back into nationalist discourse I have discussed elsewhere)
1. Are you serious?
2. Do you simply not accept the above as 'true'?

[stevectaylor]

Just cut out needless spending, red tape etc.

[Spades]

The majority of the world live in poverty. One person dies every 3 seconds from a poverty related condition. There is more suffering in the world than ever b4 in history. I was never talking about the US (this slippage back into nationalist discourse I have discussed elsewhere)
1. Are you serious?
2. Do you simply not accept the above as 'true'?

Nope, I was waiting for you to single this out even though other country are not entirely are responsiblity you know. You act like its our responsiblity and duty to give aid. This attitude is basically violating the saying 'Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth.'
As i've mentioned if we cut back some of our to the UN and spend on foreign aid, cut out aid to Egypt and Isael, and have foreign countries increase economic Aid the world would be better off and provided for easily. Especially, since the US has so many immigrants that some Latin countries get most of their income just from reminents alone. Do you know how many billions of dollars get sent out of the US alone each year? Have you heard that no other US president has done more for Africa than Bush? You know a lot of the countries we send aid to **** it done the drain through corruption and greed?

[Marxist Nutter]

Nope, I was waiting for you to single this out even though other country are not entirely are responsiblity you know. You act like its our responsiblity and duty to give aid. This attitude is basically violating the saying 'Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth.'
As i've mentioned if we cut back some of our to the UN and spend on foreign aid, cut out aid to Egypt and Isael, and have foreign countries increase economic Aid the world would be better off and provided for easily. Especially, since the US has so many immigrants that some Latin countries get most of their income just from reminents alone. Do you know how many billions of dollars get sent out of the US alone each year? Have you heard that no other US president has done more for Africa than Bush? You know a lot of the countries we send aid to **** it done the drain through corruption and greed?

I think it is our responsibility, in a sense. However this is really a personal feeling, that is regrettable that others do not share. When I say this 'our' I do not just mean the USA (I'm from the UK btw) , but the responsibility of everyone, from all countries to try and help. Aid may not be the answer, or at least the whole answer, you are quite correct to point out that corruption and greed prevent the aid from reaching those who most need it.

My point is this. We need to re-think inter - national relations and democracy, from the starting premise that the suffering in the world, is the single biggest challenge that we all face. Humans should be able to meet this challenge. The first step, however, is the acceptance that it IS our responsibility to do something. We need to think beyond aid, capitalism and national interests.

What Bush does makes little difference, because of the IMF and world bank forcing through extreme neo-liberal measures on developing countries. The sort of extreme neo-liberal models that have never (nor would ever) be adopted in the West. We should challenge, in my view, this new religion of neo-liberal global capitalism as it does just as much harm as the greed of African leaders. There are numerous problems, that the world faces, and we need new ways of thinking to deal with them. I don't have all the answers of course. I just hope that we can be open minded enough to find the answers together as human beings, not as Americans or British or Africans but as people of all nations. Idealistic - perhaps but so so necessary, at least in m view.

[Expounder]

Just out of interest where do these corporations get there money? From the consumers who buy the product. So by excessively taxing a corporation in some way to help the consumer is rather silly. Because the corporation will just make the consumer pay. Now, if you are just taxing like the makers of lets say rols royce (I can't spell) then it wouldn't hurt you the particular consumer but I am talking on an industry wide scale.

Now corporations can incorporate themselves into different countries who do not have all the taxes and restrictions that we do in order for them to get tax advantages and breaks depending on the state. Raising taxes isn't going to solve that problem when in fact it will hurt it.

I'm sorry I'm a bit late in replying, but have been otherwise engaged. Spades, I wasn't being facetious when I posed my question about whether US companies were allowed to set up tax havens out side of the US and transfer all profits made from their companies in the US out of the country without paying tax, I just wanted an answer to a question that I have no knowledge of.

The gripe I have is that some large companies, who make large profits from the efforts of workers who have to pay tax at source, ie deducted from earings in the UK, don't pay any tax at all. It's not a question about raising their tax contribution as they pay no tax.

Anyone who is a citizen of a country in a successful business I believe should be made to contribute a percentage of their income in tax to the state. In the process of making profit their transportation of goods etc
have to use road rail and ports links,their merchandise has go through import and export checks and also there is an obligation along with every other working citizen something towards state expediture.

With the massive amount of money being spent by the US Government in Iraq and Afganistan and aid relief I wondered whether the US Government would allow such total tax avoidance in the in the States?

[Spades]

My point is this. We need to re-think inter - national relations and democracy, from the starting premise that the suffering in the world, is the single biggest challenge that we all face. Humans should be able to meet this challenge. The first step, however, is the acceptance that it IS our responsibility to do something. We need to think beyond aid, capitalism and national interests.


Unfortunately, I have to disagree. For this kind of responsiblity, there was no acceptance, no choice in the matter. As you suggest it simply is. Because I am a human being I have some untold duty to give my property away. Now, that does not mean their shouldn't be charity and aid, what it means is that it shouldn't be someone else responsibility. Things like Charity and aid are extras, and human beings should continue to donate to charity but the moment someone makes me feel like its my duty to give to them, is the moment I stop. One reason why I feel this way is because they have become dependent.

I find it hard to swallow that humans in general being such a destructive force, in particular to animals, can suddenly view themselves as something above the law of survival of the fittest. Where suddenly because we are humans we are automatically imbued with these magical rights that no other animal gets.

[Spades]

Anyone who is a citizen of a country in a successful business I believe should be made to contribute a percentage of their income in tax to the state. In the process of making profit their transportation of goods etc
have to use road rail and ports links,their merchandise has go through import and export checks and also there is an obligation along with every other working citizen something towards state expediture.

With the massive amount of money being spent by the US Government in Iraq and Afganistan and aid relief I wondered whether the US Government would allow such total tax avoidance in the in the States?

Yes, they should have to pay but however to get them to have to pay the full amount you can't set overly high taxes on them, blame them for all the worlds problems, then set minimum wage and basically control everything, and then ask them to pay a high price when the next country will do it for free. You make it sound as if they get off scott free with no taxes, and use all these services and don't have to pay. I find it extremely, hard to believe that they can transfer all profits out and not pay taxes, elaborate?

[Expounder]

Yes, they should have to pay but however to get them to have to pay the full amount you can't set overly high taxes on them, blame them for all the worlds problems, then set minimum wage and basically control everything, and then ask them to pay a high price when the next country will do it for free. You make it sound as if they get off scott free with no taxes, and use all these services and don't have to pay. I find it extremely, hard to believe that they can transfer all profits out and not pay taxes, elaborate?

Spades, I can't really elaborate any more than say, There are a number of of
entrepreneurs and business magnates in Britain who to shift all of their profits to off shore tax havens without paying a penny in tax. A lot of these are foreigners in the financial market who the government thinks will move their interests elsewhere if tax is imposed because it wants London to remain a large player in this market.

This advantage is also abused by many of our home grown business men
who are quick to criticize and run down every thing about GB and the government who take everything they can, use every thing they can, and are prepared to give nothing towards the running of the country. I will name one who thinks it's clever to boast about it,a one Phillip [greedy] Green. But there are many more, Most likely "patriotic" Conservative Party supporters, who keep a low profile to hide their greed.

I know what you will say, the government shouldn't stand for it and should impose at least a minimum tax. We live in hope.:)

[Spades]

Spades, I can't really elaborate any more than say, There are a number of of
entrepreneurs and business magnates in Britain who to shift all of their profits to off shore tax havens without paying a penny in tax. A lot of these are foreigners in the financial market who the government thinks will move their interests elsewhere if tax is imposed because it wants London to remain a large player in this market.

This advantage is also abused by many of our home grown business men
who are quick to criticize and run down every thing about GB and the government who take everything they can, use every thing they can, and are prepared to give nothing towards the running of the country. I will name one who thinks it's clever to boast about it,a one Phillip [greedy] Green. But there are many more, Most likely "patriotic" Conservative Party supporters, who keep a low profile to hide their greed.

I know what you will say, the government shouldn't stand for it and should impose at least a minimum tax. We live in hope.:)

I am sorry but I think I have a new take on this whole issue. For starters, who ultimately pays the taxes for the corporations is the consumers. Simply by taxing the corporations more isn't going to do anything other than be a behind-the-door method for liberals to get money to funnel to programs. Secondly, if its a stock-holder owned company than the people who own the company are actually the stockholders. You know the 401(k)s and other things that we ultimately want the company to do good because its in our retirement interests. So blaming the big bad corporations when in actuallity its all of us who own the corporations. Another problem is that individuals often times find ways to reduce their taxes. I am sure most of the people on this forum take advantage of ways of reducing their taxes so why shouldn't a corporation. The government is the one to blame for creating incentives for business to set up in their town by tax breaks. Now corporations see that as who can give me equal benefits but cost me less and move their. They don't avoid taxes. But don't forget corporations aren't here to make you happy and give you money for nothing. As long as their not doing anything illegal whats so bad?

[Expounder]

I am sorry but I think I have a new take on this whole issue. For starters, who ultimately pays the taxes for the corporations is the consumers. Simply by taxing the corporations more isn't going to do anything other than be a behind-the-door method for liberals to get money to funnel to programs. Secondly, if its a stock-holder owned company than the people who own the company are actually the stockholders. You know the 401(k)s and other things that we ultimately want the company to do good because its in our retirement interests. So blaming the big bad corporations when in actuallity its all of us who own the corporations. Another problem is that individuals often times find ways to reduce their taxes. I am sure most of the people on this forum take advantage of ways of reducing their taxes so why shouldn't a corporation. The government is the one to blame for creating incentives for business to set up in their town by tax breaks. Now corporations see that as who can give me equal benefits but cost me less and move their. They don't avoid taxes. But don't forget corporations aren't here to make you happy and give you money for nothing. As long as their not doing anything illegal whats so bad?


I agree that it's the fault of government if they make it possilble for companies to avoid tax thats why I'm making my feelings felt, but personal income received from working for a business or being a head of that business should be paid. After all the thread is about taxing the rich, and the case I am making for the UK is that many Individuals who are making fortunes are not paying any tax on their personal incomes at all, while people who are paid salaries are taxed at source.

I'm sure you would not make the case for laws in the US to be introduced enabling the top 2% or whatever to move their personal income from business's they operate out of the country without paying revenue. I'm just making the case that that they shouldn't be allowed to do this in Britain, and that they contribute a fair share towards the country in which they have the privilege of earning their wealth:mad:

[Spades]

I agree that it's the fault of government if they make it possilble for companies to avoid tax thats why I'm making my feelings felt, but personal income received from working for a business or being a head of that business should be paid. After all the thread is about taxing the rich, and the case I am making for the UK is that many Individuals who are making fortunes are not paying any tax on their personal incomes at all, while people who are paid salaries are taxed at source.

I'm sure you would not make the case for laws in the US to be introduced enabling the top 2% or whatever to move their personal income from business's they operate out of the country without paying revenue. I'm just making the case that that they shouldn't be allowed to do this in Britain, and that they contribute a fair share towards the country in which they have the privilege of earning their wealth:mad:

The individuals themselves (even the rich) are being taxed at least I would think. The companies themselves however, while I would wish them to pay taxes out of their profits without raising the price to the consumer, is something that will never happen. The individuals themselves however pay taxes, at least I would think so.

I pay a lot of money taxes to the government and I have no wish of having to pay more. One day I was sitting having a conversation with a mother who told me that she couldn't get any benefits from the government because she had saved money up for retirement (When she had a job). So they were forcing her to open her savings (early which means taxes) instead of giving her aid because she put money into the system. However, along came some immigrants (She knew from the lack of english and their mexico id) who putnothing into the system walked right on in and benefited. Fair? Hardly.

[Expounder]

The individuals themselves (even the rich) are being taxed at least I would think. The companies themselves however, while I would wish them to pay taxes out of their profits without raising the price to the consumer, is something that will never happen. The individuals themselves however pay taxes, at least I would think so.
in and benefited. Fair? Hardly.

They are paying no taxes individual or otherwise, they are avoiding tax on all profits, profits, [including their personal sharefrom the business] are moved to the tax haven and they still have the gaul to disparage the government and attack it at every opportunity:eek:

[Spades]

They are paying no taxes individual or otherwise, they are avoiding tax on all profits, profits, [including their personal sharefrom the business] are moved to the tax haven and they still have the gaul to disparage the government and attack it at every opportunity:eek:

Are you sure its individuals who do this? Wouldn't it be called something like tax evasion. Who do you know that's been able to do this.

[Expounder]

Are you sure its individuals who do this? Wouldn't it be called something like tax evasion. Who do you know that's been able to do this.

Plhttp://taxcafe.co.uk/non-resident-offshore-tax.html?gclid=CNWa05KtppUCFQ6T1QodFEknkgease read my post of the 20th August on this thread.

[Expounder]

Plhttp://taxcafe.co.uk/non-resident-offshore-tax.html?gclid=CNWa05KtppUCFQ6T1QodFEknkgease read my post of the 20th August on this thread.
Non Resident, Expatriate & Offshore Tax Planning (http://taxcafe.co.uk/non-resident-offshore-tax.html?gclid=CNWa05KtppUCFQ6T1QodFEknkg)

[Borderscot]

They are paying no taxes individual or otherwise, they are avoiding tax on all profits, profits, [including their personal sharefrom the business] are moved to the tax haven and they still have the gaul to disparage the government and attack it at every opportunity:eek:

You have clear proof that what you are asserting is completely true. If so, please post you evidence so as we can all share it.:confused:

[Expounder]

You have clear proof that what you are asserting is completely true. If so, please post you evidence so as we can all share it.:confused:
Non Resident, Expatriate & Offshore Tax Planning (http://taxcafe.co.uk/non-resident-offshore-tax.html?gclid=CNWa05KtppUCFQ6T1QodFEknkg)

Or go to google and type in "non tax paying domiciles" Philip Greens tax avoidance arrangments have been chronicled widely in the media, my last sighting of this was in the Observer on Sunday a few months ago.

[Spades]

Non Resident, Expatriate & Offshore Tax Planning (http://taxcafe.co.uk/non-resident-offshore-tax.html?gclid=CNWa05KtppUCFQ6T1QodFEknkg)

Or go to google and type in "non tax paying domiciles" Philip Greens tax avoidance arrangments have been chronicled widely in the media, my last sighting of this was in the Observer on Sunday a few months ago.

The site you provided was a guy trying to sell a book on how to not have to pay your taxes. I find that rather.... hard to swallow as credible, however, I am going to read up on this.

Anyways, this sounds like it would money laundering or at least tax evasion. Which I believe it is, and the government already made it a crime. Not a whole lot else the government can do beyond that.

[Expounder]

The site you provided was a guy trying to sell a book on how to not have to pay your taxes. I find that rather.... hard to swallow as credible, however, I am going to read up on this.

Anyways, this sounds like it would money laundering or at least tax evasion. Which I believe it is, and the government already made it a crime. Not a whole lot else the government can do beyond that.


What I'm pointing out spades it is legal because the government has allowed foriegn owned business's in Britain particularly large financial ones tax free status to keep them sweet and encourage them to remain trading in the City of London. There are also loopholes that the tax laws[probably related to this] that the governmment could close which allow our own domiclies to avoid paying any tax on personal or company income.

I'm no tax expert but I do know it's been well documented in our media over the last few years.:)

[Borderscot]

What I'm pointing out spades it is legal because the government has allowed foriegn owned business's in Britain particularly large financial ones tax free status to keep them sweet and encourage them to remain trading in the City of London. There are also loopholes that the tax laws[probably related to this] that the governmment could close which allow our own domiclies to avoid paying any tax on personal or company income.

I'm no tax expert but I do know it's been well documented in our media over the last few years.:)

You seem to have got somewhat mixed up with all your different assertions, If anyone earns money in this countrym they will be required to pay tax on it unless they have an arrangement where they pay tax on their income in their home country ie an American can arrrange to pay tax on income earned here in the USA,

You mention Philip Green - he has had his arrangements curtailed because beside the fact that he is allowed to spend 90 days a year working in the UK, he now finds that whereas in the past the day he travelled here and the day he returned were not counted towards the 90 day allowancem this is not longer the case so he has to spend less time here.

I think you are under the impression that there are thousands of people working in this country on a no pay tax basis, but I am pretty sure that the number involved is very small.

I seem to remember Gordon Brown when in opposition stating that he would ENSURE that everyone who worked in this country would pay tax and NI on their earnings in this country, He in fact at one stage tried to say that he would ensure that tax was paid in the UK on all earning - inside or outside the UK, so what you are claiming reflects very poorly on Brown.

[Expounder]

You seem to have got somewhat mixed up with all your different assertions, If anyone earns money in this countrym they will be required to pay tax on it unless they have an arrangement where they pay tax on their income in their home country ie an American can arrrange to pay tax on income earned here in the USA,

You mention Philip Green - he has had his arrangements curtailed because beside the fact that he is allowed to spend 90 days a year working in the UK, he now finds that whereas in the past the day he travelled here and the day he returned were not counted towards the 90 day allowancem this is not longer the case so he has to spend less time here.

I think you are under the impression that there are thousands of people working in this country on a no pay tax basis, but I am pretty sure that the number involved is very small.

I seem to remember Gordon Brown when in opposition stating that he would ENSURE that everyone who worked in this country would pay tax and NI on their earnings in this country, He in fact at one stage tried to say that he would ensure that tax was paid in the UK on all earning - inside or outside the UK, so what you are claiming reflects very poorly on Brown.

Where did you read that I said thousands were not paying tax? I said many are not
I also said everyone working for a wage or salary has tax deducted at source many business's are not paying tax, because of because it is made easy for them by the goverment tax laws to employ tax "advisors" and avoid paying.

What I am saying is that the owners of these firms can live outside the UK for the precribed period and pay no tax in this country although they are using the infrastructure [which costs money to maintain] Most of them "patriotic" Tory voting business men who rubbish the government at the first opportunity.

If you visited the site I mentioned [non tax paying domiciles] and click on to first item you would have seen,in the first paragraph I quote: "the concept of domicile is not dependant upon the residence status of the indivdual, in many cases individuals may have lived in the UK for many years but are not regarded as domiciled here"

If that dosen't sound like an invitation to avoid tax as a domiclie I don't know what is, and why should they advertise if if couldn't be done? Tax havens are what they say they are, a place to put your money without paying tax. I don't know the the number of of domiciles who use these facilities the ones who do generally keep alow profile, But if one person can do it so can others we can only guess at the numbers.

[Albion 69]

Where did you read that I said thousands were not paying tax? I said many are not
I also said everyone working for a wage or salary has tax deducted at source many business's are not paying tax, because of because it is made easy for them by the goverment tax laws to employ tax "advisors" and avoid paying.

What I am saying is that the owners of these firms can live outside the UK for the precribed period and pay no tax in this country although they are using the infrastructure [which costs money to maintain] Most of them "patriotic" Tory voting business men who rubbish the government at the first opportunity.

If you visited the site I mentioned [non tax paying domiciles] and click on to first item you would have seen,in the first paragraph I quote: "the concept of domicile is not dependant upon the residence status of the indivdual, in many cases individuals may have lived in the UK for many years but are not regarded as domiciled here"

If that dosen't sound like an invitation to avoid tax as a domiclie I don't know what is, and why should they advertise if if couldn't be done? Tax havens are what they say they are, a place to put your money without paying tax. I don't know the the number of of domiciles who use these facilities the ones who do generally keep alow profile, But if one person can do it so can others we can only guess at the numbers.

A bit rich to see you banging on about Tory voting non - domiciles Exp , it was George Osbourne who promised to introduce a £25000 annual charge on all non domiciles ... Labour nicked the idea a few weeks later :rolleyes:

Smash and grab: how Labour stole the Tories' big ideas | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/oct/10/uk.topstories3)

[Expounder]

A bit rich to see you banging on about Tory voting non - domiciles Exp , it was George Osbourne who promised to introduce a £25000 annual charge on all non domiciles ... Labour nicked the idea a few weeks later :rolleyes:

Smash and grab: how Labour stole the Tories' big ideas | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/oct/10/uk.topstories3)


Tory busisess men are the only ones with enough dosh to squirrel away in these tax havens. £25.000, big deal, peanuts to any one making millions. remember Albion I am pointing the finger at the present government also.

If someone makes their money in a particular country I find it very greedy and unpatriotic of them not to contribute a fair share of related income like all as minions are made to do.:mad:

[Albion 69]

Tory busisess men are the only ones with enough dosh to squirrel away in these tax havens. £25.000, big deal, peanuts to any one making millions. remember Albion I am pointing the finger at the present government also.

If someone makes their money in a particular country I find it very greedy and unpatriotic of them not to contribute a fair share of related income like all as minions are made to do.

Labour used to have plenty of wealthy backers , but you may be right most of them have now seen sense ;) £25000 every year soon adds up , i am glad you recognise the current government is as much to blame and i agree non domiciles that earn big amounts of wonga should pay more . Tax avoidance should be a crime punishable with a lengthy prison term (including businesses !) .

[Marxist Nutter]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. For this kind of responsiblity, there was no acceptance, no choice in the matter. As you suggest it simply is. Because I am a human being I have some untold duty to give my property away. Now, that does not mean their shouldn't be charity and aid, what it means is that it shouldn't be someone else responsibility. Things like Charity and aid are extras, and human beings should continue to donate to charity but the moment someone makes me feel like its my duty to give to them, is the moment I stop. One reason why I feel this way is because they have become dependent.

I find it hard to swallow that humans in general being such a destructive force, in particular to animals, can suddenly view themselves as something above the law of survival of the fittest. Where suddenly because we are humans we are automatically imbued with these magical rights that no other animal gets.

Let us remember that 'survival of the fittest' is a human creation. Evolution theory is a human interpretation of events, animals did not invent it!!

Anyway ...What makes anything YOUR property. Think about this and you may see where the responsibility comes from;)

[Spades]

Let us remember that 'survival of the fittest' is a human creation. Evolution theory is a human interpretation of events, animals did not invent it!!

Anyway ...What makes anything YOUR property. Think about this and you may see where the responsibility comes from;)

Quite the existentalist.

Anyways, what makes anything ANYONE's responsiblity? If something is not my property then what is my responsiblity to give it away. You cannot tax what is not mine then. That computer you type all your posts on, if it is not your property then how did you gain possession of it. How can people give, buy, sell things that are not theirs in the first place then. What is the Law then if not the human interpretation of the rules we need to survive in? What is suffering if not the human interpretation of a specific state of a human being?

Property itself is just another human interpretation along with just about everything else.

[Marxist Nutter]

Quite the existentalist.

Anyways, what makes anything ANYONE's responsiblity? If something is not my property then what is my responsiblity to give it away. You cannot tax what is not mine then. That computer you type all your posts on, if it is not your property then how did you gain possession of it. How can people give, buy, sell things that are not theirs in the first place then. What is the Law then if not the human interpretation of the rules we need to survive in? What is suffering if not the human interpretation of a specific state of a human being?

Property itself is just another human interpretation along with just about everything else.

Not really existentialist more constructivist

Maybe I should have said 'where does property come from?' rather than what makes anything property. It comes from force and violence if you look back far enough, in very single case. I was implying that we all have a responsibility to reduce the suffering that stems from this violence. You are of course free to disagree.

[Spades]

Not really existentialist more constructivist

Maybe I should have said 'where does property come from?' rather than what makes anything property. It comes from force and violence if you look back far enough, in very single case. I was implying that we all have a responsibility to reduce the suffering that stems from this violence. You are of course free to disagree.

Well, property to me doesn't necessarily stem from violence/suffering. But I do see that violence is created from the idea of property anyways. The problem here, is that when resources grow limited here will always be violence. In the up in coming world resources will become so strained (if nothign is done) to the point where there will be no way to peacefully 'stem' the violence. If the world cannot support its population, then there will be violence over who gets 'supported' and who doesn't.

So their can be no responsiblity to stem the inevitable. Although I will donate what I can to those that *really* need it. Those that are really suffering.

[Marxist Nutter]

Well, property to me doesn't necessarily stem from violence/suffering. But I do see that violence is created from the idea of property anyways. The problem here, is that when resources grow limited here will always be violence. In the up in coming world resources will become so strained (if nothign is done) to the point where there will be no way to peacefully 'stem' the violence. If the world cannot support its population, then there will be violence over who gets 'supported' and who doesn't.

So their can be no responsiblity to stem the inevitable. Although I will donate what I can to those that *really* need it. Those that are really suffering.

I think property most likely does stem from violence if you look back far enough. I am also thinking of quite a broad definition of violence. Another aspect of my case for responsibility to others comes from the idea that we owe the 'other' for our very identity. The 'I' makes no sense without the other. There is no 'I' independent of the world and of others. This comes from a mix of Buddhist belief and post-structuralist philosophy; and is not something that I would force anyone to believe. However, I feel strongly that we have an irreducible responsibility to the other. To respect the demands and help the suffering of others, this is just a (albeit well thought out) personal view.

[Spades]

Interesting, may I ask if your expertise is in Philosophy or is it just a personal interest?