moonbattery logo

Nov 28 2012

Excessive Taxation Cost Britain Two Thirds of Its Millionaires

By now even liberals know about the Laffer Curve, and how raising taxes that are already excessive does not increase but rather decreases government revenue. But their eat-the-rich approach is good for one thing — ridding a country of its most productive citizens:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election. …

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

Another partial explanation is that the high tax rates so oppress the economy that it is no longer possible to create as much wealth.

In any case, the predictable result of taxing millionaires more was that those who didn’t escape the country like East Germans climbing the Berlin Wall produced less tax revenue.

But as Barack Hussein Obama has openly admitted, the point of raising taxes on the demonized rich is not to raise revenue, but to inflict “fairness” — i.e., sheer malice — in the name of Marxist ideology.

the-laffer-curve
Why liberal economics are insane at a glance.

On tips from Artfldgr, Sam Adams, and Bob Roberts

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponShare on Facebook


  • Doug

    Funny, I thought this was the “Laugher” curve.

  • RobM1981

    At some point a nation like Poland or Slovakia is going to capitalize on this. At some point they are going to open their borders to these exPats, offer them a fantastic business environment, and ride the rocket.

    Although it doesn’t feel like it right now, there really are places on earth where the idiots haven’t completely wrecked the place. We need to make sure it stays that way – if not here, then elsewhere.

  • http://twitter.com/TheWrightWingv2 TheWrightWing

    Off topic, but juicy:

    Gore’s team tries again to buy fake evidence of global warming

    blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gores_team_trues_again_to_buy_fake_evidence_of_global_warming/

    That phony will just never stop.

  • RealityCalling

    Real patriots don’t argue on the side of tax evaders.

  • Kevin R.

    Re: RealityCalling at 3:57

    Oh, look. The moonbat is waving the flag of real patriotism.

  • Artfldgr

    to RealityCalling…

    Are you saying that there are no limits to REPRESENTATIONAL government when they get morons like you to think that you would tax yourself so much?

    Are you so stupid? Do you know nothing of the founding history of the United States and what the patriots of the US did for that? Does Stamp Tax ring a bell? Declaration of Independence remind you of anything?

    Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
    — Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

    [Mr Douglas has a wonderful rebuttal to the modern idea that the founders thought of blacks as less than whites (4/5ths?). But given the huge ignorance you could put into 10 words, i doubt it. and before you call me a racist or something, Mr. Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey was once a slave. ]

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Does the above, written by some of the most admired patriots mankind every produced?

    and some choice points i bet you never read:

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    and you realize that those founders thought that workers should not have to pay tax, but only land owners, and owners of businesses? (though they also thought only those should vote as its their money that funds things).

    and before you go chattering…

    The basic principle upon which the Declaration rests is that colonists, as British citizens, believed they were entitled to the rights and privileges granted by the Magna Carta, and the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Among other things, these documents established that the King was not above the law, that the people, represented in parliament, had a right to endorse or reject taxation, and that citizens were entitled to a trial by jury of their peers. Additionally, the Declaration relied on precedent: most British colonies had enjoyed self-rule and had been governed through their own legislative bodies since their founding. By 1774, most of the colonists that had once protested “no taxation without representation” found themselves without any representation whatsoever, neither in Parliament nor in any colonial house of representation.

    The point was Lex Rex, that the state was not above the law, and so on…

    If you would tax yourself at the level your telling them to be taxed at, and do so EQUALLY, sharing the burden EQUALLY… would you accept that? or is it just easier to claim false hubritic superiority because your not the target?

  • Highway Hospital Student

    Under the control of liberals, the Laffer curve at least answers the question: “where does it stop?”

    The Laffer curve also answers: “where are we going and how are we getting there?”

    No one has answered the question, how many 3rd world immigrants will Americans be saddled with, bc no sovereign country has ever allowed a hostile invasion with absolutely no resistance to the enemy.

    So while there is no model to measure the absorbing-carrying capacity of the U.S. to measure the inevitable demographic conversion(half of Mexico? all of Mexico?…how many?.. enough to steal an election?), at least the Laffer curve provides a reasonable model to predict the economic destruction of the U.S.

    The only question now is “how fast?”

  • bobdog

    The only hope the UK has is all the rich Frenchies who are immigrating to avoid the even higher taxes in France.

    The only worse thing than British socialism? French socialism.

  • Sam Adams

    bobdog says:
    November 28, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    _______

    Belgium is the tax haven for the French. Gérard Depardieu left just recently because of the 75% rate in France.

    In reality, a lot of rich folks have already abandoned the US.

  • Sam Adams

    RealityCalling says:
    November 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Real patriots don’t argue on the side of tax evaders.
    ___________

    That’s right. Rich patriots don’t care how much they pay in taxes. They don’t care if over half of the time they work, they are working for someone else. They don’t care that punishing a behavior (such as punishing the industrious and productive) will lead to less people engaging in that behavior. (Remember “sin” taxes like taxes on alcohol and tobacco…specifically intended to get people to drink and smoke less. Why doesn’t the same logic apply to progressive income tax rates?)

  • Highway Hospital Student

    Liberals have set a cast for degeneracy and personal indecency that now molds the country.

    And as the country proceeds toward fiscal insolvency, more people than ever are leaving it.

    Renunciation seems impractical bc you get hit with a 15% “exit” tax (they’ll say anything) on everything you own and everything you leave behind or everything you take with you.

    My first choice is secession. But we can’t even be bothered to lift a finger to look at electoral fraud that could be used for a recall. Even if we did, the republicans would go to court to put a halt on it.

    My third and more practical choice is a residence within the US Caribbean possessions — St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix— which offer an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent.

    Here, the liberal stench is more tolerable.

  • Pingback: Who Could Have Foreseen This ? « YouViewed/Editorial

  • What??

    raising the tax rate(which I am against)wont destroy the country. Does no one here remember the tax rate of the 50s,60s,70s,and early 80s. Was the country on the verge of collapse during this time? No.
    Businesses would re-invest much of thier profits back into thier companies and in thier employees (in the form of higher wages and bonuses) instead of giving them over to the government.Granted you didnt have the billionairs you have today but there were still millionairs and an incredibly large middle class. A single income family could buy a nice size home, cars, have the wife stay home to raise children and save for collage and still have expendable income. I dont recall a decline in private business or a mass exodus of millionairs leaving the country because of this tax rate (70%-91% after the first $500k I believe).

    Everyone can claim how raising the maximum federal tax rate on incomes over $500k would destroy the country but history shows otherwise.

  • TED
  • TED

    Speaking of Millionaires

    Do presidents in this country really make that much? (sarc)

  • TED
  • TED

    RealityCalling says: November 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    That statement does include ALL the leftist evaders too, right? Is There a leftist that pays their taxes?

  • Kevin R.

    Re: What?? says, at 6:06

    The moonbat would impose the failed policies of the past that didn’t work.

    The moonbat mentality simply repeats the rationalizations of power offered it by it’s masters, never thinking through the inconsistencies of logic. Like the fact that no one actually paid those kind of tax rates, else their money would have gone elsewhere. Or that the ’70s and early ’80s were a terrible time for the economy. Or that in the period of time they talk of the regulatory burden was lighter by orders of magnitude.

    If those times are to held up as a model then we should go back to the same regulatory burden on the economy of those times too.

  • What??

    Kevin R. says:

    ” Or that the ’70s and early ’80s were a terrible time for the economy.”

    Due to:
    A quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC coupled with high government spending because of the Vietnam War led to stagflation in the United States.The period was also marked by the 1973 oil crisis and the 1973–1974 stock market crash. The period is remarkable for rising unemployment coinciding with rising inflation.

    The NBER considers a short recession to have occurred in 1980, followed by a short period of growth and then a deep recession. Unemployment remained relatively elevated in between recessions. The recession began as the Federal Reserve, under Paul Volcker, raised interest rates dramatically to fight the inflation of the 1970s. The early ’80s are sometimes referred to as a “double-dip” or “W-shaped” recession.

    The Iranian Revolution sharply increased the price of oil around the world in 1979, causing the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused by the new regime in power in Iran, which exported oil at inconsistent intervals and at a lower volume, forcing prices up. Tight monetary policy in the United States to control inflation led to another recession. The changes were made largely because of inflation carried over from the previous decade because of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis.

    After the lengthy peacetime expansion of the 1980s, inflation began to increase and the Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates from 1986 to 1989. This weakened but did not stop growth, but some combination of the subsequent 1990 oil price shock, the debt accumulation of the 1980s, and growing consumer pessimism combined with the weakened economy to produce a brief recession.

    And yes the above was a c&p.

  • Pingback: Obama Is Not Serious About the Fiscal Cliff. « American Elephants

  • Pingback: A Tax Increase Primer - First Class Process Service

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy