"Evicted": Marina Won't Renew Contract for Next Year to maximize Profit

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The example of the Irish success story is interesting. They’ve apparently been quite successful in their approach. But what’s happening now? The high-tax countries, like US and Germany are loudly complaining that the Irish are "unfair" because they’re NOT setting high tax rates and so people and businesses are moving to Ireland. The same way that people are moving from CA and NY to TX and FL.

When I see the high-tax proponents voluntarily paying 25% more money than the government demands, I’ll concede that they’re true believers in giving to help others. But as long as their arguments are in the line of "we should raise taxes on somebody else" I have to doubt their sincerity.

You are referring to business taxes , personal taxes are and have been very high and doubly so on high income earners as the deductions fall away rapidly. It’s a source of much debate as high earners get very little access to social support schemes etc ( and rightly so )

Interesting the success of the business policy has lead to a situation that 65% of all tax take is coming from corporation tax. ( 12.5%) a dramatic about turn from twenty years ago when most of it was income tax receipts ( or house sales tax )

The issue for Ireland isn’t the tax rate it’s the change in global taxation policy to tax digital sales at the point of purchase, Ireland typically” books “ all non US sales for Apple , Google , Facebook , and many others

The main treat to Ireland isn’t from Germany or the EU , it’s from the US !!!

[Larry Florida]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Ah yes, clinging to the Horatio Alger nonsense - if a few people escape poverty all is well! I am very happy for you that you succeeded - fantastic. Do you sleep well at night knowing that so few others can? If we had real social mobility, all would be well. There will always be poor people. But you are lying to yourself if you believe that the system gives people a fair shot. Not by a long shot.

Get out there and do something about it if that's what you believe. Do some work instead of whining about it. That's what I did. Talk is cheap.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

Get out there and do something about it if that's what you believe. Do some work instead of whining about it. That's what I did. Talk is cheap.

Talk makes policy, policy changes rules , talk works too

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

In general terms many progressive countries see taxation as a partial means to redistribute wealth. After all not everyone can be an investment banker etc.

Society and particularly the wealthy need stability particular social stability. If you can’t sleep at night because your in fear of your life , it’s not a pleasant situation

Hence most countries see a “ degree” of wealth redistribution as a good thing. That’s means a “ progressive tax “ system ie the more you earn the more as a percentage of your income you pay in taxes. This is only right and proper as the fact is the rich can afford it.

View it like a fancy marina , the marina owner ( the gov ) says “ hey it’s a nice place to keep your boat ( live peacefully ) we keep it tidy and spruced up ( actually pay the police ) and the neighbours are nice and respectful ( have reasonable houses and jobs and look just like you ) , that’s be 20k a year says the marina owner ( pay your taxes says the government ). You settle in, the wife says “ this is a nice spot honey” you think “ hell it’s only money and I can afford it “

So the next time you drive along that public funded highway , just think about the marina analogy

Please accept that I accept my public responsibility and am content to pay more than someone who has less income to insure my grandchildren and their grandchildren are safe, educated, and warm. I am a regular Guy with a 30' sailboat and a nice Condo to live in and I work like a dog every day to support these things. I pay income taxes in the 50% range which is enormous as I contemplate how to fund a retirement that lets me still have a boat when I am young enough to enjoy it. When I look at the proportion I pay relative to others, and then look at the consumption of these dollars once they become program dollars I know that I am doing my share plus!

The salt in the wound comes from people yelling at me that I am not doing enough and that we rich people are scofflaws intent on evading our rightful responsibilities and doing it on the backs of the poor.

If, as last analyzed by me studying US taxation policy, 15% of the people are paying 85% of the taxes, we need to stop and ask ourselves if this is really re-distribution in the spirit we intend.

[Bycrick]

I’m talking less about what the tax rates are, or should be, than I am about the perpetual whining of people who's position seems to be that taxes should be raised on somebody else rather than them. The complaint that "they" should pay more taxes, while at the same time complaining that theirs are too high.

Many years ago in San Francisco, it was easy to assess and then raise the "hotel tax." Why? Because the residents who voted for it never had to pay it.

Or the idea expressed in some posts that leaving a high-tax jurisdiction to live someplace that cost less was somehow tax dodging.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Please accept that I accept my public responsibility and am content to pay more than someone who has less income to insure my grandchildren and their grandchildren are safe, educated, and warm. I am a regular Guy with a 30' sailboat and a nice Condo to live in and I work like a dog every day to support these things. I pay income taxes in the 50% range which is enormous as I contemplate how to fund a retirement that lets me still have a boat when I am young enough to enjoy it. When I look at the proportion I pay relative to others, and then look at the consumption of these dollars once they become program dollars I know that I am doing my share plus!



The salt in the wound comes from people yelling at me that I am not doing enough and that we rich people are scofflaws intent on evading our rightful responsibilities and doing it on the backs of the poor.



If, as last analyzed by me studying US taxation policy, 15% of the people are paying 85% of the taxes, we need to stop and ask ourselves if this is really re-distribution in the spirit we intend.

Your situation is like my own. Though I’m now retired at 60.

In general “ progressive “ taxation takes a little from low earners simply because they consume so much of their income in basic sustenance, particularly amongst single parents and minimum wage earners. Here things like free third level , free Heath are and subsidised housing make a real difference.

As you get richer you’re % spent on basic sustenance is far lower , this leaves very significant amounts as free disposable income.

Governments see that income as a source of taxable income which does little harm. Site your next car may not be a Ferrari or even a new car but that’s how states view things. After all the tax has to come from somewhere.

Sure every program has its waste and inefficiencies but again that is not a justification to end them.

I think many countries strike a balance between wealth and taxes and try and extract as much as practical while leaving enough to ensure the taxpayer continues to earn. The Nordic models and many Western European nations has this type of philosophy often as a result of the post WW2 crisis.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by danstanford

The salt in the wound comes from people yelling at me that I am not doing enough and that we rich people are scofflaws intent on evading our rightful responsibilities and doing it on the backs of the poor.

In my mind, you're not part of the problem. You're paying a significant chunk into the system, and you're working hard to afford a nice lifestyle. The problem comes from the people far above the level of most of us here. When you have enough money that you can just buy someone solely for the purpose of preventing someone else from having it and not care about the cost, then it's at a level of money where the current taxation (in the US at least) is probably insufficient (not necessarily because of the tax rates, but because of the amount of deductions, etc. that some of the super rich manage and how little they actually end up paying). Well, that and many of them having very little true "income" and the lower tax on capital gains.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Interesting the success of the business policy has lead to a situation that 65% of all tax take is coming from corporation tax. ( 12.5%) a dramatic about turn from twenty years ago when most of it was income tax receipts ( or house sales tax )

Isn't all tax of this type paid for by citizens? If the corporation wasn't paying this tax it would be re-distributed to shareholders who would then pay personal tax on the income.
Though they appear to be wealthy, corporations are just vessels for wealth which is then distributed to shareholders. Be it Apple stock or that of my own corporation, money in my jeans results in personal taxes.

Taxing corporations at higher rates just hurts the shareholders (often pension funds) though you can make the argument that this is an incentive for those corporations to invest in ways to make more product or cut costs instead of paying higher taxes which is ultimately good for all of us.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

In my mind, you're not part of the problem. You're paying a significant chunk into the system, and you're working hard to afford a nice lifestyle. The problem comes from the people far above the level of most of us here. When you have enough money that you can just buy someone solely for the purpose of preventing someone else from having it and not care about the cost, then it's at a level of money where the current taxation (in the US at least) is probably insufficient (not necessarily because of the tax rates, but because of the amount of deductions, etc. that some of the super rich manage and how little they actually end up paying). Well, that and many of them having very little true "income" and the lower tax on capital gains.

I think this is a myth. For someone to have a capital gain, they must have paid tax on the money to have invested. Be that an income property or a stock, you have to take taxed dollars to buy it in the first place. If all the forgoing were taking place inside a corporation then when you want to money out to buy things you will have to pay personal taxes on it.

If Donald Trump didn't pay any taxes he either didn't make any money or he cheated.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Isn't all tax of this type paid for by citizens? If the corporation wasn't paying this tax it would be re-distributed to shareholders who would then pay personal tax on the income.

Though they appear to be wealthy, corporations are just vessels for wealth which is then distributed to shareholders. Be it Apple stock or that of my own corporation, money in my jeans results in personal taxes.



Taxing corporations at higher rates just hurts the shareholders (often pension funds) though you can make the argument that this is an incentive for those corporations to invest in ways to make more product or cut costs instead of paying higher taxes which is ultimately good for all of us.

Well the issue is what jurisdiction the shareholders are in ? ( hint not in Ireland )

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I think this is a myth. For someone to have a capital gain, they must have paid tax on the money to have invested. Be that an income property or a stock, you have to take taxed dollars to buy it in the first place. If all the forgoing were taking place inside a corporation then when you want to money out to buy things you will have to pay personal taxes on it.

If Donald Trump didn't pay any taxes he either didn't make any money or he cheated.

You would have paid full income taxes on the original investment, but by that token, why should you pay a reduced tax rate on the growth? It's still a form of income, so why not tax it the same?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I think this is a myth. For someone to have a capital gain, they must have paid tax on the money to have invested. Be that an income property or a stock, you have to take taxed dollars to buy it in the first place. If all the forgoing were taking place inside a corporation then when you want to money out to buy things you will have to pay personal taxes on it.



If Donald Trump didn't pay any taxes he either didn't make any money or he cheated.

The trouble is , it’s not justified creating multiple corporations and accessing tax havens and so forth on a few 100K.it is of course entirely justified on 100 or 200 million hence the rich don’t play in the same ball park as you and I do. A phalanx of accountants and lawyers ensure they get the lowest tax take possible even if they spend millions to ensure it’s so.

Is that right no it’s not.

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

You would have paid full income taxes on the original investment, but by that token, why should you pay a reduced tax rate on the growth? It's still a form of income, so why not tax it the same?

If I had to guess it is because the architects of the tax code do not want to consider the mess that similar tax losses would mean from a net tax value and an administrative sense.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Point I was trying to make is that when people quote in terms of absolutes, it just annoys me.

I think we both agree on that, but I don't believe that this applies to my comment. Referencing various economic analysis, society doesn't need billionaires to be philanthropists. We need them to pay their fair share, and we need them to stop distorting the economic, tax and legal system to overtly benefit themselves. If they want to charitably generous on top of this, then that's even better. But the best thing they could do is pay their fair share, stop buying lobbyist and politicians, and pay their employees better. That would have a far greater positive impact on societies.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Many people con the system, both rich and poor and when those are taken as the norm, it accomplishes nothing but added spin and polarity

Agreed, but it would be naive (and I know you're not that ) to suggest that poor people "con the system" at the same level that the wealthy do (and no, not all wealthy, just like not all poor). There are multiple ways to illustrate this point, but one which rings loud is the connection to public policy and support by various tranches of society. Numerous studies have found that public policy, and most particularly economic policy, is largely driven by the desires of the rich, and largely ignores the demands of the poor. Some American-based studies have found that the lowest economic tranches of society have virtually no influence on public policy.

On a simple level, how many lobbyists can a poor person afford? It takes mass organizations of the poor to even begin to match the power of the top 1%, and more acutely the top 0.1%.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Yes, Warren Buffet has very good ideas of what is fair and equitable and applies that to himself in his own way.

The Buffet reference I was making was his own observation that his income is taxed a lower rate than his middle-class secretary. His point, if I remember correctly, was that all income should be taxed at the same rates (assuming a progressive tax system).

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Yet, because he doesn't cater to political rhetoric, he is castigated by the media as a tax dodger

https://observer.com/2020/05/warren-...older-meeting/

This article says another rich shareholder "challenged" Buffet. I'm not aware of him being castigated by the media. In fact, I'd say the media (a generalized term which really doesn't mean much) presents Buffett favourably most of the time.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by danstanford

...If, as last analyzed by me studying US taxation policy, 15% of the people are paying 85% of the taxes, we need to stop and ask ourselves if this is really re-distribution in the spirit we intend.

And 10% still have 76% of the wealth (in 2016, now, certainly more).