those damn Brits prove the evil Republicans are right

[Trajan]

This is exactly what several states here have done and what Obama proposes as well.

The UK has now on a national level provided an example for Obama to learn from, it don't work......

unless of course he knows this and just wants to use this as a platform to stir up class warfare etc etc ......



50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’
The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.


The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

more at-
50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’ - Telegraph


I loved their headline, 'failing to boost revenue', why yes thats one way of putting an epic fail...

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is exactly what several states here have done and what Obama proposes as well.

The UK has now on a national level provided an example for Obama to learn from, it don't work......

unless of course he knows this and just wants to use this as a platform to stir up class warfare etc etc ......



50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’
The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.


The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

more at-
50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’ - Telegraph


I loved their headline, 'failing to boost revenue', why yes thats one way of putting an epic fail...

1. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

2. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179


3. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqkOrA4tEs]Obama Taxes are for fairness - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We need to wipe out the UK so they stop conducting experiments in 50% surtax rates that prove the Republicans who say it will decrease revenue are right.

The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’ - Telegraph

 

[L.K.Eder]

who gave the marching order?

drudge? malkin?

 

[California Girl]

The silence from the left is speaks loudly.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The silence from the left is speaks loudly.

and you are a writer, lol

 

[Zander]

Large punitive tax rate increases rarely result in increased revenues to the Treasury. In fact, they usually net less, as the "rich" have numerous options available to them. But leftists do not care about that bit of reality, for them it is about punishing success and rewarding failure.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

maybe we can jack our rate up so all the Chinese will move their money elsewhere and then americans can own american stuff again.

 

[Syphon]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

 

[freedombecki]

Large punitive tax rate increases rarely result in increased revenues to the Treasury. In fact, they usually net less, as the "rich" have numerous options available to them. But leftists do not care about that bit of reality, for them it is about punishing success and rewarding failure.

Unless it is one of their own. It's more about punishing their political opposition and rewarding themselves with the spoils of this fruitcake war they're waging against people who earned their way and deserve good.

 

[Zander]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 300% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Please compare revenues under Clinton to revenues today with the tax rates lower and the economy doing much worse. To make it easier for you I will tell you that the highest revenue under Clinton was $2 trillion and was $2.2 trillion last year.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well austrity didn't work in the UK either.

Conservative Austerity Idea Is Failing
Conservative Austerity Idea Is Failing: David G. Blanchflower - Bloomberg

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The silence from the left is speaks loudly.

Be on your toes. Spell checker and grammar corrector is flying around.

 

[ladyliberal]

The first post seems to be in reference to the Laffer curve. It is certainly true that a sufficiently high tax rate can lower revenue (if income is taxed at 100%, for example, no one will earn income and no tax revenue will be collected). However, it is completely wrong to suggest that a marginal increase in, say, the top personal income tax rate in the US would decrease tax revenue. The article cited is particularly poor evidence for a few reasons:

First, the tax rate is substantially higher than the US rate (unless I just misunderstand how British taxes work, which is certainly possible) and thus falls elsewhere on the Laffer curve. More importantly:

A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.

and

However, another Treasury source added that the tax deadline had been extended by two days because of industrial action at HM Revenue and Customs. Therefore, it was too early to begin assessing the revenues raised from the 50p rate of tax because about 20 per cent of self-assessment tax is paid in the hours before the deadline.

So, revenue is down about 5% because 20% of payments hadn't been included yet, and because people had restructured their affairs to avoid paying the self-assessment tax (I would assume that means they paid other taxes instead). So in fact it seems almost impossible that the higher tax rate didn't increase tax revenues substantially.

 

[freedombecki]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 150% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

 

[Syphon]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Please compare revenues under Clinton to revenues today with the tax rates lower and the economy doing much worse. To make it easier for you I will tell you that the highest revenue under Clinton was $2 trillion and was $2.2 trillion last year.

1 - there are more tax payers currently than there were under clinton
2 - GDP has increased since Clinton as well.
3 - your numbers are not adjusted for inflation

 

[Syphon]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 150% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it.

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them. That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.

if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?

 

[Trajan]

merged

 

[Trajan]

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?

Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating.

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 150% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.

wells aid, when dividends were taxed higher in the 90's less co's , by a lot, provided dividends, the number then increased, by a lot, after bush lowered the rate. history is a hard taskmaster, especially foe the class warrior