The Swiss release the names of tax dodgers

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Let the free-market, pro-rich apologists comment.

Comment - I suspect that now instead of losing their tax revenue but retaining their productive capacity, the nation will now lose that as well. You can only punish success for so long until it punishes you back.

Reply- where in the world would they go? There isn't an economy in the world that has the earning potential that has lower taxes than the US. Eric

Eric, you missed the point.

They don't have to go anywhere at all. They just reduce or stop production to minimize/eliminate the tax liability. Of course, that has a negative effect on tax revenue and employment, but who cares about that?

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Let the free-market, pro-rich apologists comment.

Comment - I suspect that now instead of losing their tax revenue but retaining their productive capacity, the nation will now lose that as well. You can only punish success for so long until it punishes you back.

Reply- where in the world would they go? There isn't an economy in the world that has the earning potential that has lower taxes than the US. Eric

Eric, you missed the point. They don't have to go anywhere at all. They just reduce or stop production to minimize/eliminate the tax liability. Of course, that has a negative effect on tax revenue and employment, but who cares about that?

So you earn less money so you pay less taxes? Seems kind of stupid, if you ask me. It's just like taking out an extra mortgage just to pay less taxes- for the honor of a smaller tax burden, you get to pay interest to a bank and have a net lower amount at home.

Aren't these business in business to make money? You think they will stop just to get back at the govenement? Ilogical.

If I were a shareholder in said company, I would raise a fit. One should raise prodution so that you can cover the tax burden faster.

Eric

alfadriver wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Let the free-market, pro-rich apologists comment.

Comment - I suspect that now instead of losing their tax revenue but retaining their productive capacity, the nation will now lose that as well. You can only punish success for so long until it punishes you back.

Reply- where in the world would they go? There isn't an economy in the world that has the earning potential that has lower taxes than the US. Eric

Eric, you missed the point. They don't have to go anywhere at all. They just reduce or stop production to minimize/eliminate the tax liability. Of course, that has a negative effect on tax revenue and employment, but who cares about that?

So you earn less money so you pay less taxes? Seems kind of stupid, if you ask me. It's just like taking out an extra mortgage just to pay less taxes- for the honor of a smaller tax burden, you get to pay interest to a bank and have a net lower amount at home. Aren't these business in business to make money? You think they will stop just to get back at the govenement? Ilogical. If I were a shareholder in said company, I would raise a fit. One should raise prodution so that you can cover the tax burden faster. Eric

Shareholders adversely affected by lower profits sell their shares. That does not bode well for any publicly-traded company.

Increasing production to cover an additional tax burden may work ONLY if there is enough demand for the product to increase sales. Otherwise, a company operating under your premise would piss-off shareholders and they would (justifiably) sell their shares.

JohnGalt wrote: Ah a flat tax. Good idea but i doubt i will ever live to see it happen. I would settle for 2 tax brackets 18% for everyone under 800,000 a year and 23% for everyone over that.

If you have to have 2 brackets, I would do it the other way around. Make less money, you are in the higher bracket. That is incentive to earn more, yet the people who make more will still be paying more money in taxes.

The problem is the super rich when faced with astronomical taxes just park their money. Parked money doesn't pay income tax. Parked money also doesn't help the economy. When the market crashed, those super rich saw the writing on the wall and pulled the money out of the market before the capital gains and income taxes went sky high. Some of it went overseas. The feds are just making sure they get whats coming to them.

FYI: Who pays the most in taxes.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The way I hear it, Switzerland and Cayman are Bob Costas compared to Panama. That is where the smart money has gone. Or so I hear, you know, guys talk, word gets around.

I agree with the national sales tax over an income tax. You still have to buy stuff.. no matter how much you make

It seems like "fairtax" would just shift the problem around for the super-rich. Sure, the billionaire will buy his toilet paper here, but it may make more sense to buy his multimillion dollar yacht overseas and park it in the French riviera. If a person is willing to hide their money overseas, why wouldn't they buy black/gray market goods as well?

MitchellC wrote: It seems like "fairtax" would just shift the problem around for the super-rich. Sure, the billionaire will buy his toilet paper here, but it may make more sense to buy his multimillion dollar yacht overseas and park it in the French riviera. If a person is willing to hide their money overseas, why wouldn't they buy black/gray market goods as well?

You're the first to refer to the "Fair Tax" on this thread.

Go here: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer; do some honest research.

One of the cool things about the "Fair Tax" proposal is that it's applied to purchases of "new" products and services. Anything used or pre-owned is exempt.

What can be more grass-roots than that?

I have done a little reading on Fairtax, and I'm really curious about how it would really affect product prices. If the price of everything new goes up by 15% or whatever, wouldn't the "used" goods just follow suit? Are the claims of wage increases taking into account the decreased purchasing power?

MitchellC wrote: I have done a little reading on Fairtax, and I'm really curious about how it would really affect product prices. If the price of everything new goes up by 15% or whatever, wouldn't the "used" goods just follow suit? Are the claims of wage increases taking into account the decreased purchasing power?

Read the proposal and your questions are answered.

If you won't do that, are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

From what I read, it was unclear; I was hoping that I could get an answer from one of its supporters. No, I have not read the complete manifesto yet. Now, where do I sign up as part of the problem? I hear that scapegoats are always in high demand.

oldsaw wrote: One of the cool things about the "Fair Tax" proposal is that it's applied to purchases of "new" products and services. Anything used or pre-owned is exempt. What can be more grass-roots than that?

Ohh man that's going to jack up the price of my beater cars.... (not flaming, just a statement)

Toyman01 wrote: The problem is the super rich when faced with astronomical taxes just park their money. Parked money doesn't pay income tax. Parked money also doesn't help the economy. When the market crashed, those super rich saw the writing on the wall and pulled the money out of the market before the capital gains and income taxes went sky high. Some of it went overseas. The feds are just making sure they get whats coming to them. FYI: Who pays the most in taxes. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Parked money also makes no money. So what you are suggesting is that the super rich have a set point where they see the need to not make any more money?

Bear in mind, people who TRADE stock have virtually NO impact on the economy. When F was trading at $1.50 and now trading at $7.50, F does not get any money off of those trades. The only time stock trades benefit the economy is when they are originally purchased from a company, who is looking for investment money. ALL of the trades between shareholders has no impact on a given company- just a change of perception.

BTW, the rich pulled their money to not loose so much on the crash. Not to avoid capitol gains taxes, since they have not gone up, yet.

oldsaw wrote: Shareholders adversely affected by lower profits sell their shares. That does not bode well for any publicly-traded company. Increasing production to cover an additional tax burden may work ONLY if there is enough demand for the product to increase sales. Otherwise, a company operating under your premise would piss-off shareholders and they would (justifiably) sell their shares.

Ok, so let me get this straight- lets put this on a personal level- a person makes $1M a year, and faces an easy to caclulate 33% tax. So on that $1M, the person takes home $667k, right?

What you are suggesting is that this person will deliberatly earn less money, say $750k, to pay less taxes???

For that $750k, instead of $333k of taxes, he pays a mere $250k. For that honor, instead of taking home $667k, they take home $500k.

So to avoid paying $83k of taxes, a person will be willing to take home $167k less????

You can play this game on a corporate level, too.

Is THIS really what you mean?