i was thinking about this a couple of days ago... taxation prior to about the wwi era was through tarriffs on everything.... basically the people purchasing things in the us paid higher costs for foreign goods so the government could be funded (in addition the government used its gold reserves etc to help here and there)... unfortunately, as i think is obvious, this doesnt work when 1) the country becomes too large (the us quadrupled in population during the early part of the century if i remember correctly), 2) self sufficiency is no longer an option (that has been the case in the us since the very beginning -- while this nation is resourse rich, it does not and cannot support itself), and 3) when other countries start taxing their population, any tarriffs act as foreign policy thus hurting both countries and their economies in the end... the sudden shift to a taxation economy has been advantageous to the us and the world, the size and severity of the economic bubbles (they are more easily controlled as well) has diminished significantly since prior to the 20th century in addition the world is just producing more more cheaply than it did at any other time...
progressive taxes dont at this time act as a redistributor of wealth so to liken them to that is a fallacy described by the uber-wealth to chide the tax... the rich still do get richer, unfortunately, raising taxes does push people away so there is a balance that needs to be gained; still, should a progressive tax exist? yes.
and in all honesty this nation isnt a free one -- there are rules you have to follow to live here, paying taxes is one of them... you pay and live within the rules to live here... the social benefit of taxation particularly with regard to the educational and social enhancement of the population is unknowingly emmense...
if the rich donated their money with no caveats to public schools, arts enrichment etc, maybe in some ideal world there wouldnt need to be taxes... but no one, except perhaps for the gates', does this... i actually have a lot of respect for bill gates in this regard even if his operating system and entire corporation is the tool of the devil...
"Interestingly enough, there wasn't an income tax in the USA until after WWI."
Is this true ? Certainly didn't learn that one in history classes.
What about the Boston tea party ?..Wasn't that about Tax ?\
there were taxes in america, but there wasn't an Income Tax. the supreme court found the income tax unconstitutional, and it took a constitutional amendment to allow it. here is a little (perhaps biased) history of the 16th amendment.
personally, i don't like the idea of any income tax, and i certainly don't like the idea that when i become rich that i'll be taxed more heavily than others. percentages already take into account the fact that rich people have more money. 10% of 1M is more than 10% of 10K. I think the government should be cutting taxes almost everywhere that it can. the federal government shouldn't be in control of everything that it is in control of. the federal government is only there to assist in certain specific areas (enumerated in the article 1, section 8 of the consitution). i don't like how the federal government uses law to evoke social change; states, cities, towns and individual homes can handle that themselves.
personally, i don't like the idea of any income tax, and i certainly don't like the idea that when i become rich that i'll be taxed more heavily than others. percentages already take into account the fact that rich people have more money. 10% of 1M is more than 10% of 10K
although this is true, that also means that one person now has $900,000 left over to buy everyday items, while another only has $9,000.
the argument becomes that the rich person can afford to give more without having to sacrifice their everyday items, while a poor person might need all $10,000 just to survive.
that's why i'm a big fan of sales tax, with exceptions for food/clothing. (probably rent too or something).
just don't take the items people truly need, then tax other items accordingly. the nice part is that rather than having to audit individuals, they'd audit companies to see if they're complying with the tax laws.
although this is true, that also means that one person now has $900,000 left over to buy everyday items, while another only has $9,000.
the argument becomes that the rich person can afford to give more without having to sacrifice their everyday items, while a poor person might need all $10,000 just to survive.
that's why i'm a big fan of sales tax, with exceptions for food/clothing. (probably rent too or something).
just don't take the items people truly need, then tax other items accordingly. the nice part is that rather than having to audit individuals, they'd audit companies to see if they're complying with the tax laws.
Like that would ever pass. Sorry, but under our current system, it won't.
The national sales tax is a great idea. If you want to buy the 20 million dollar mansion, you'll pay a lot of tax. If you have a lot of money and want to live the "fast life", you'll also be paying a lot of taxes. It gives people an option as to how much they want to be taxed. And, people who make 10,000 a year don't hardly pay any income tax, certainly not 1,000 a year.
As far as taxing corporations, there is indeed a balance. IIRC Ireland has become quite prosperous due in large part to their relaxing the taxes on corporations.
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
Reaganomics!
If the goal was to get more money to the government, then I agree with Powerdoc.
Here's an interesting read, if you like economics, I suppose. Here's a snip:
Quote:
I agree perfectly with those who wish to relieve the small taxpayer by getting the largest possible contribution from the people with large incomes. But if the rates on large incomes are so high that they disappear, the small taxpayer will be left to bear the entire burden. If, on the other hand, the rates are placed where they will get the most revenue from large incomes, then the small taxpayer will be relieved. The experience of the Treasury Department and the opinion of the best experts place the rate which will collect most from the people of great wealth, thus giving the largest relief to people of moderate wealth, at not over 25%.
Now, if the goal is to take from the rich and give to the poor,, then tax away!
If Warren Buffet doesn't move to Monaco, I bet he becomes a Bud-swilling, Friday-night bowling kind of guy, claiming to be middleclass.
Remember, I'm not an economist, but I play one on the internet.
thuh Freak, that is probably the most eloquent and informed posting I have read from you. Nice job!
To aquafire and others, can you cite anything that actually shows that the middle class is getting smaller. I believe this to be one of those "facts" that has been repeated and repeated until it is true. I would also want some figures to account for the growth in social policies that can lead to poverty as well. If anything poverty has been grown by governmental policy. If you are a millionaire and you get a no fault divorce, it hurts your finances but you get by without being in poverty. Yet we extend these rights down to the lower classes and they attempt them with disasterous results.
I'm not trying to get into a war on this, I'm just telling it like it is. We are talking about money, not happiness. Perhaps before they would have remained unhappily married but part of the middle class. The fact that they choose to divorce does not mean some evil rich guys are oppressing them. All of us have seen and read stories and accounts of what marriage and life was like before say the turn of the century. People would get married (sometimes) just to form a family unit because it was almost impossible to get by without that type of household. Now people feel free to rip apart family units whenever they care to, but it still has economic consequences. In fact the majority of poor households are headed up by single females with children.
Despite all that, I still see the middle class getting larger. I know for a fact that home ownership (a key sign of middle class participation) is at an all time high.
Sales taxes are horribly regressive. The millionaire is not likely to consume enough to justify what he would have paid before in income taxes. The government knows this or they would have switched a long time ago. Most of the rich do not live a lavish Hollywood type lifestyle. You should read a book called the Millionaire Next Door. The author took demographic data of lots of America's millionaires. They are quite ordinary in their spending habits and seldom spend frivolously. I mean how do you think they became millionaires in the first place?
The biggest flaws in thinking about taxation are this. First the rich know about money. You don't get money unless you know how it works. Knowing how it works means that the rich can ALWAYS out think the government. Just look at corporations they are basically legal people but they don't pay taxes like legal people. They make money, spend as much of it as they can, then they are taxed on whatever is left over. (profits) You are taxed when you make the money, not on whatever is left over.
Why is it this way? Because the rich find a way to get around the rules the government sets up.
The income tax is a prime example of this. It was supposed to be a super-rich tax on only the top 1% of income earners. Amazingly enough the revenue amounts didn't come in and over time it has now hit everyone.
That is pretty much the history of taxation right there. Claim it is on the rich, watch the rich avoid it, then watch it fall on the middle class.
The most obvious example of this is Social Security which is a 13% flat tax on you whether you realize it or not. SS actually has an upper limit for what you can contribute to it per year. It is easily the most regressive tax in the entire country yet it is seen as helping the poor and elderly so it is untouchable. Yet the people it hurts the most are the middle class and poor in taxation terms. They are literally making 13% less money. Likewise when you retire, if you have a pension that pays you well (this is considered income) or if you have a business investment that pays you, or a 401k, you WILL be taxed on the SS you get from the government. Yes you are being taxed twice.
The income tax works out the same way. The rich have numerous things to deduct from their income and even though they are rich, they will have it so they don't receive their income but just control it.
What the heck does that mean?
Well you might buy a car and pay for it with after tax dollars. This already puts you at about a 20% disadvantage to a rich person because they will buy their car with pre-tax dollars. They are literally paying 20% less. Then you likely finance it as well because hey it is hard to afford a car with so little money in your pocket. Which means you are also paying finance charges as well.
In the end it is like you paid 30-35% more for the same car.
How come the rich didn't have to pay for it like you did? Well first if they need a car they will have their business buy it for them. The business does it with pretax dollars and it is removed from their profits which could be taxed. They just happen to drive the car in a manner that you the owner would however it isn't owned by them. They control it but don't own it. The business owns it. What is the "business?" It is a set of legal documents in a file folder in a file cabinet called a corporation. The "corporation" owns the car.
The corporation also gets to deduct all the maintainance, care, repair, etc from their income regarding the car. You pay for it with after tax dollars.
Someone here gave a simplistic example of a flat tax using $10,000 and $1,000,000 dollars and being taxed at 10%. They said that they would owe taxes of $1,000 and $100,000 respectively.
However if they rich person was smart enough to get paid a million bucks, do you think he would be dumb enough to just let 100k slip away? He has a 100k incentive to find a way around the system. If he ends up spending less than 100k than he has beat the system. So he pays his lawyers $25k to created a convoluted manner of accounting for his money. Now he only owes $25k in taxes, but he makes $50k by beating the system.
The poor guy is never going to spend money trying to beat the system. The stakes are too small. He just forks over his money.
When you consider that the top tax rate in this country is 31% and not 10%, you can see why the rich get and stay smart about taxes quickly.
Are the rich terrible for avoiding taxes? I don't think so. If I wanted to come to your house and just start taking things, you would attempt to avoid it. You might put up a fence, bars over the windows, deadbolt on the door, alarm system, and eventually you might be standing there with your friends Smith and Wesson asking me politely to leave.
The assumptions most people make about money and finances are just astonishing. They make them about many aspects of their lives. They just don't question things, they go around pointing fingers instead. Middle class assumptions keep you middle class, poor class assumptions keep you poor. Middle class and poor class assumptions about the rich will definately keep you poor.
Even for the rich that "live large" they likely control their money but don't "own" it per se. Think P.Diddy owns that mansion? No way to much taxes. He just lives in it and Bad Boy Records just happens to pay for it and own it. They do it with pre-tax dollars and still get to deduct the interest as well.
Heck he probably has a holding company called Bad Girl that owns the property and the Bad Boy leases it from Bad Girl so that he can get double write offs from his taxes. Bad Girl gets the property, the depreciation of the property, and the rental income from the property which would show up as a loss. Bad Boy gets to lease the property which shows as a loss.
P Diddy lives in mansion and shows huge losses from Bad Girls and Bad Boys.
But as he says, don't hate the playa... hate the game...play on playa...
As far as taxing corporations, there is indeed a balance. IIRC Ireland has become quite prosperous due in large part to their relaxing the taxes on corporations.
Stranger things have happened. Remember, the "income tax" was a constitutional amendment, like Prohibition.
That's right-- we once banned alcoholic drinks (no wonder Europeans laugh at Americans).
There's a difference: holding corporate america responsible for their actions is quite frankly voting themselves out of their jobs. We will never have true campaign finance reform or real term limits because NO ONE IS GOING TO VOTE THEMSELVES OUT OF A JOB.
Anyway, the political landscape of the early 1900s is totally different than what it is now. SPECIOUS ANALOGY! I CALL BULLSHIT ON YOU!! WOO!
Is any of this growth attributed to the EU subsidies Ireland was receiving?
Absolutely - also attributable to a young, well-educated population with a high level of IT/engineering degrees. 3rd level education has been free for about ten years, and was free (with grants provided for books and other expenses) to those from families with a lower income level prior to that.
One of those, writer Alexandre Oler (whose books are vey difficult to find) was called an AIGranFort (=Assujeti Ã* l'Impôt sur les Grandes Fortunes), in a preface to one of his aforementioned books.
Watching from a safe distance (OK, Geneva in case you wondered), I was amazed that France managed to go through the Mauroy government, and live to bear witness.
It seems to me, that in this case, both France and the US seem each to have gone a little too far in their respective directions , while some others (look around) find more reasonable compromises, which themselves should be re-evaluated as reality is changing, and not thought of as some Â?definitive formulae set in stoneÂ?.
You are right a balanced tax politic is the answer, and personally i am for an intermediate politic between the French one and the US one. The problem of France (or one of it) is that a too big part of the population is waiting everything from the state and is not ready to do anything to leave this status.
My wife is a general practicionner MD, she is amazed (in fact horrified) by the number of people who have for only dreams to have Cotorep ( a rent for people who canno't work) and who think that everything is due to them without paying. They have rights, but they don't think they have duties.
Solidarity is a good thing, and is essential for certain people who are unable to work, but when it's the mammel of laziness and parasitism it make me angry. However the reality teach us, that the more solidarity you bring, the more parasitism you will feed and the less solidarity, the less misery there will be. We can try to be selective, but it's very difficult in practice. Like you say there is no definitive formulae set in stone to answer to this, but i would love that solidarity is bringed to people who canno't work and not to people who do not want to work. Perhaps it's time for me to believe again in Santa Klaus.
PS : i just realise when reading your answer to my first quote, that i wroted it badly. I was trying to said that only the smaller part of the richest people was paying this tax, the others have fleed from France.
However i think you understood my point dispate the very bad wording.
In the sixties with a thing called super tax, for the super rich, The Beatles were paying 98% tax, hence Taxman. I don't think poverty was eradicated. I agree that the rich should pay more in percentage terms than the average person. Now our top rate is 40%, unfortunately it kicks in at circa £30,000, not exactly rich in my book. Scumball Jeffrey Archer used to boast about how he paid more in tax every year than most people earned in their lifetime, still wasn't enough to hurt the prick.
Benjamin Powell fails to address the fact that Ireland - as one of the EUs four 'cohesion' countries (all of which have shown greater than EU15 average GDP growth since the mid nineties) - didn't just receive agricultural subsidies. Ireland's infrastructure was completely revamped with EU money. Roads and industrial estates were built, and grants offered to help develop business. In fact, based on this article, Powell doesn't seem to know what he's talking about at all (the bit about entrepreneurs being too distracted by the availability of grants to innovate is particularly laughable)
Ireland became an attractive location for international business for a number of reasons.
1. Highly skilled, English-speaking workforce subject to high unemployment levels.
2. Low corporate tax rate - currently under 12.5% (?) (other EU countries were unable to match this).
3. Industrial development grants.
4. Modern infrastructure.
EU money made the latter three possible and had significant impact on the Irish education system. The openness of the Irish market was important, but the role of the EU should not be underplayed.
Benjamin Powell fails to address the fact that Ireland - as one of the EUs four 'cohesion' countries (all of which have shown greater than EU15 average GDP growth since the mid nineties) - didn't just receive agricultural subsidies.
Thanks. I thought that article seemed a little biased.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I think they all sucked goat for heroin. I may be wrong.
Nah, Even I know such hippy shit didn't happen till callifornia was invented.....somewhere in Berkley
progressive taxes dont at this time act as a redistributor of wealth so to liken them to that is a fallacy described by the uber-wealth to chide the tax... the rich still do get richer, unfortunately, raising taxes does push people away so there is a balance that needs to be gained; still, should a progressive tax exist? yes.
and in all honesty this nation isnt a free one -- there are rules you have to follow to live here, paying taxes is one of them... you pay and live within the rules to live here... the social benefit of taxation particularly with regard to the educational and social enhancement of the population is unknowingly emmense...
if the rich donated their money with no caveats to public schools, arts enrichment etc, maybe in some ideal world there wouldnt need to be taxes... but no one, except perhaps for the gates', does this... i actually have a lot of respect for bill gates in this regard even if his operating system and entire corporation is the tool of the devil...
bruce
Originally posted by aquafire
"Interestingly enough, there wasn't an income tax in the USA until after WWI."
Is this true ? Certainly didn't learn that one in history classes.
What about the Boston tea party ?..Wasn't that about Tax ?
there were taxes in america, but there wasn't an Income Tax. the supreme court found the income tax unconstitutional, and it took a constitutional amendment to allow it. here is a little (perhaps biased) history of the 16th amendment.
personally, i don't like the idea of any income tax, and i certainly don't like the idea that when i become rich that i'll be taxed more heavily than others. percentages already take into account the fact that rich people have more money. 10% of 1M is more than 10% of 10K. I think the government should be cutting taxes almost everywhere that it can. the federal government shouldn't be in control of everything that it is in control of. the federal government is only there to assist in certain specific areas (enumerated in the article 1, section 8 of the consitution). i don't like how the federal government uses law to evoke social change; states, cities, towns and individual homes can handle that themselves.
personally, i don't like the idea of any income tax, and i certainly don't like the idea that when i become rich that i'll be taxed more heavily than others. percentages already take into account the fact that rich people have more money. 10% of 1M is more than 10% of 10K
although this is true, that also means that one person now has $900,000 left over to buy everyday items, while another only has $9,000.
the argument becomes that the rich person can afford to give more without having to sacrifice their everyday items, while a poor person might need all $10,000 just to survive.
that's why i'm a big fan of sales tax, with exceptions for food/clothing. (probably rent too or something).
just don't take the items people truly need, then tax other items accordingly. the nice part is that rather than having to audit individuals, they'd audit companies to see if they're complying with the tax laws.
Originally posted by alcimedes
although this is true, that also means that one person now has $900,000 left over to buy everyday items, while another only has $9,000.
the argument becomes that the rich person can afford to give more without having to sacrifice their everyday items, while a poor person might need all $10,000 just to survive.
that's why i'm a big fan of sales tax, with exceptions for food/clothing. (probably rent too or something).
just don't take the items people truly need, then tax other items accordingly. the nice part is that rather than having to audit individuals, they'd audit companies to see if they're complying with the tax laws.
Like that would ever pass. Sorry, but under our current system, it won't.
Ireland
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
Reaganomics!
If the goal was to get more money to the government, then I agree with Powerdoc.
Here's an interesting read, if you like economics, I suppose. Here's a snip:
I agree perfectly with those who wish to relieve the small taxpayer by getting the largest possible contribution from the people with large incomes. But if the rates on large incomes are so high that they disappear, the small taxpayer will be left to bear the entire burden. If, on the other hand, the rates are placed where they will get the most revenue from large incomes, then the small taxpayer will be relieved. The experience of the Treasury Department and the opinion of the best experts place the rate which will collect most from the people of great wealth, thus giving the largest relief to people of moderate wealth, at not over 25%.
Now, if the goal is to take from the rich and give to the poor,, then tax away!
If Warren Buffet doesn't move to Monaco, I bet he becomes a Bud-swilling, Friday-night bowling kind of guy, claiming to be middleclass.
Remember, I'm not an economist, but I play one on the internet.
Originally posted by BR
Like that would ever pass. Sorry, but under our current system, it won't.
Stranger things have happened. Remember, the "income tax" was a constitutional amendment, like Prohibition.
That's right-- we once banned alcoholic drinks (no wonder Europeans laugh at Americans).
thuh Freak, that is probably the most eloquent and informed posting I have read from you. Nice job!
To aquafire and others, can you cite anything that actually shows that the middle class is getting smaller. I believe this to be one of those "facts" that has been repeated and repeated until it is true. I would also want some figures to account for the growth in social policies that can lead to poverty as well. If anything poverty has been grown by governmental policy. If you are a millionaire and you get a no fault divorce, it hurts your finances but you get by without being in poverty. Yet we extend these rights down to the lower classes and they attempt them with disasterous results.
I'm not trying to get into a war on this, I'm just telling it like it is. We are talking about money, not happiness. Perhaps before they would have remained unhappily married but part of the middle class. The fact that they choose to divorce does not mean some evil rich guys are oppressing them. All of us have seen and read stories and accounts of what marriage and life was like before say the turn of the century. People would get married (sometimes) just to form a family unit because it was almost impossible to get by without that type of household. Now people feel free to rip apart family units whenever they care to, but it still has economic consequences. In fact the majority of poor households are headed up by single females with children.
Despite all that, I still see the middle class getting larger. I know for a fact that home ownership (a key sign of middle class participation) is at an all time high.
Sales taxes are horribly regressive. The millionaire is not likely to consume enough to justify what he would have paid before in income taxes. The government knows this or they would have switched a long time ago. Most of the rich do not live a lavish Hollywood type lifestyle. You should read a book called the Millionaire Next Door. The author took demographic data of lots of America's millionaires. They are quite ordinary in their spending habits and seldom spend frivolously. I mean how do you think they became millionaires in the first place?
The biggest flaws in thinking about taxation are this. First the rich know about money. You don't get money unless you know how it works. Knowing how it works means that the rich can ALWAYS out think the government. Just look at corporations they are basically legal people but they don't pay taxes like legal people. They make money, spend as much of it as they can, then they are taxed on whatever is left over. (profits) You are taxed when you make the money, not on whatever is left over.
Why is it this way? Because the rich find a way to get around the rules the government sets up.
The income tax is a prime example of this. It was supposed to be a super-rich tax on only the top 1% of income earners. Amazingly enough the revenue amounts didn't come in and over time it has now hit everyone.
That is pretty much the history of taxation right there. Claim it is on the rich, watch the rich avoid it, then watch it fall on the middle class.
The most obvious example of this is Social Security which is a 13% flat tax on you whether you realize it or not. SS actually has an upper limit for what you can contribute to it per year. It is easily the most regressive tax in the entire country yet it is seen as helping the poor and elderly so it is untouchable. Yet the people it hurts the most are the middle class and poor in taxation terms. They are literally making 13% less money. Likewise when you retire, if you have a pension that pays you well (this is considered income) or if you have a business investment that pays you, or a 401k, you WILL be taxed on the SS you get from the government. Yes you are being taxed twice.
The income tax works out the same way. The rich have numerous things to deduct from their income and even though they are rich, they will have it so they don't receive their income but just control it.
What the heck does that mean?
Well you might buy a car and pay for it with after tax dollars. This already puts you at about a 20% disadvantage to a rich person because they will buy their car with pre-tax dollars. They are literally paying 20% less. Then you likely finance it as well because hey it is hard to afford a car with so little money in your pocket. Which means you are also paying finance charges as well.
In the end it is like you paid 30-35% more for the same car.
How come the rich didn't have to pay for it like you did? Well first if they need a car they will have their business buy it for them. The business does it with pretax dollars and it is removed from their profits which could be taxed. They just happen to drive the car in a manner that you the owner would however it isn't owned by them. They control it but don't own it. The business owns it. What is the "business?" It is a set of legal documents in a file folder in a file cabinet called a corporation. The "corporation" owns the car.
The corporation also gets to deduct all the maintainance, care, repair, etc from their income regarding the car. You pay for it with after tax dollars.
Someone here gave a simplistic example of a flat tax using $10,000 and $1,000,000 dollars and being taxed at 10%. They said that they would owe taxes of $1,000 and $100,000 respectively.
However if they rich person was smart enough to get paid a million bucks, do you think he would be dumb enough to just let 100k slip away? He has a 100k incentive to find a way around the system. If he ends up spending less than 100k than he has beat the system. So he pays his lawyers $25k to created a convoluted manner of accounting for his money. Now he only owes $25k in taxes, but he makes $50k by beating the system.
The poor guy is never going to spend money trying to beat the system. The stakes are too small. He just forks over his money.
When you consider that the top tax rate in this country is 31% and not 10%, you can see why the rich get and stay smart about taxes quickly.
Are the rich terrible for avoiding taxes? I don't think so. If I wanted to come to your house and just start taking things, you would attempt to avoid it. You might put up a fence, bars over the windows, deadbolt on the door, alarm system, and eventually you might be standing there with your friends Smith and Wesson asking me politely to leave.
The assumptions most people make about money and finances are just astonishing. They make them about many aspects of their lives. They just don't question things, they go around pointing fingers instead. Middle class assumptions keep you middle class, poor class assumptions keep you poor. Middle class and poor class assumptions about the rich will definately keep you poor.
Even for the rich that "live large" they likely control their money but don't "own" it per se. Think P.Diddy owns that mansion? No way to much taxes. He just lives in it and Bad Boy Records just happens to pay for it and own it. They do it with pre-tax dollars and still get to deduct the interest as well.
Heck he probably has a holding company called Bad Girl that owns the property and the Bad Boy leases it from Bad Girl so that he can get double write offs from his taxes. Bad Girl gets the property, the depreciation of the property, and the rental income from the property which would show up as a loss. Bad Boy gets to lease the property which shows as a loss.
P Diddy lives in mansion and shows huge losses from Bad Girls and Bad Boys.
But as he says, don't hate the playa... hate the game...play on playa...
Hahahahahah
Nick
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
As far as taxing corporations, there is indeed a balance. IIRC Ireland has become quite prosperous due in large part to their relaxing the taxes on corporations.
Ireland
Is any of this growth attributed to the EU subsidies Ireland was receiving?
Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights
Stranger things have happened. Remember, the "income tax" was a constitutional amendment, like Prohibition.
That's right-- we once banned alcoholic drinks (no wonder Europeans laugh at Americans).
There's a difference: holding corporate america responsible for their actions is quite frankly voting themselves out of their jobs. We will never have true campaign finance reform or real term limits because NO ONE IS GOING TO VOTE THEMSELVES OUT OF A JOB.
Anyway, the political landscape of the early 1900s is totally different than what it is now. SPECIOUS ANALOGY! I CALL BULLSHIT ON YOU!! WOO!
Originally posted by bunge
Is any of this growth attributed to the EU subsidies Ireland was receiving?
Absolutely - also attributable to a young, well-educated population with a high level of IT/engineering degrees. 3rd level education has been free for about ten years, and was free (with grants provided for books and other expenses) to those from families with a lower income level prior to that.
It is not who one loves to envy that gets you ahead it is indeed what you know that gets you ahead.
Fellows
Is any of this growth attributed to the EU subsidies Ireland was receiving?
Doesn't sound like the subsidies had much to do with it.
Subsidies
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
One of those, writer Alexandre Oler (whose books are vey difficult to find) was called an AIGranFort (=Assujeti Ã* l'Impôt sur les Grandes Fortunes), in a preface to one of his aforementioned books.
Watching from a safe distance (OK, Geneva in case you wondered), I was amazed that France managed to go through the Mauroy government, and live to bear witness.
At the time, a Parisian comic used to have this line: �Jeunesse ingrate, vous ne méritiez pas Giscard!�.
It seems to me, that in this case, both France and the US seem each to have gone a little too far in their respective directions , while some others (look around) find more reasonable compromises, which themselves should be re-evaluated as reality is changing, and not thought of as some Â?definitive formulae set in stoneÂ?.
You are right a balanced tax politic is the answer, and personally i am for an intermediate politic between the French one and the US one. The problem of France (or one of it) is that a too big part of the population is waiting everything from the state and is not ready to do anything to leave this status.
My wife is a general practicionner MD, she is amazed (in fact horrified) by the number of people who have for only dreams to have Cotorep ( a rent for people who canno't work) and who think that everything is due to them without paying. They have rights, but they don't think they have duties.
Solidarity is a good thing, and is essential for certain people who are unable to work, but when it's the mammel of laziness and parasitism it make me angry. However the reality teach us, that the more solidarity you bring, the more parasitism you will feed and the less solidarity, the less misery there will be. We can try to be selective, but it's very difficult in practice. Like you say there is no definitive formulae set in stone to answer to this, but i would love that solidarity is bringed to people who canno't work and not to people who do not want to work. Perhaps it's time for me to believe again in Santa Klaus.
PS : i just realise when reading your answer to my first quote, that i wroted it badly. I was trying to said that only the smaller part of the richest people was paying this tax, the others have fleed from France.
However i think you understood my point dispate the very bad wording.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Bunge,
Doesn't sound like the subsidies had much to do with it.
Subsidies
Benjamin Powell fails to address the fact that Ireland - as one of the EUs four 'cohesion' countries (all of which have shown greater than EU15 average GDP growth since the mid nineties) - didn't just receive agricultural subsidies. Ireland's infrastructure was completely revamped with EU money. Roads and industrial estates were built, and grants offered to help develop business. In fact, based on this article, Powell doesn't seem to know what he's talking about at all (the bit about entrepreneurs being too distracted by the availability of grants to innovate is particularly laughable)
Ireland became an attractive location for international business for a number of reasons.
1. Highly skilled, English-speaking workforce subject to high unemployment levels.
2. Low corporate tax rate - currently under 12.5% (?) (other EU countries were unable to match this).
3. Industrial development grants.
4. Modern infrastructure.
EU money made the latter three possible and had significant impact on the Irish education system. The openness of the Irish market was important, but the role of the EU should not be underplayed.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Benjamin Powell fails to address the fact that Ireland - as one of the EUs four 'cohesion' countries (all of which have shown greater than EU15 average GDP growth since the mid nineties) - didn't just receive agricultural subsidies.
Thanks. I thought that article seemed a little biased.