Society - Inequality vs. Equality - Page 7 - Myth-Weavers


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Society - Inequality vs. Equality

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TW Teczka View Post
Let's assume that you are filthy rich though who are 55. You have two possibilities:
a) work hard with your business and leave less to your kids at the end;
b) become a tax exile, instead of working spend lot's of time ex. skiing in Switzerland and effective leave more to your children.
(it could be also possible to rule your international empire anyway from abroad)
With respect to estate taxes specifically, why do you have to work any harder vis a vis a country where they're not as high? Further, you can live in luxury in the States in virtually any climate you want, doing anything you want. The only difference (again constrained to ETs) is you get taxed more on death, but how much do those lost millions _really_ matter when again, it has literally zero impact on how your kids live, unless they decide to be excessively prodigal/wasteful? There's no real difference except that maybe after estate taxes, they can't buy that private jet of pure platinum they've always wanted. In the meanwhile, you're dead. I might mind the government denying my children enough money to never have to work a day in their lives, but I personally don't care if its take leaves more than enough for them to revel in perpetual luxury.

Quote:
My point is the following. That's not the problem of getting a few tax havens forced to disclose some data. The problem is that in globalized world people (especially cosmopolitan elites) anyway are not bound too much to any country. That not a matter of creating some bogus net of mysterious legal entities and secret bank accounts. The devensive solution may be also simply packing suitcases. Especially if we're talking about the long run. I wondered about emigration not because of tax reasons but other economic factors, though actually my country was very mildly hit by crisis in contrast to Ireland. Had that been reverse I'd have a different IP number now.
Again, I acknowledge tax competition and resultant tax exiling as an issue; the race to the bottom that victimizes everyone but the rich. That said, US taxes are light vis a vis socialist democracies such as Germany, Canada and France, yet those countries largely manage to retain their talent and wealthy as a practical matter despite civil and orderly tax havens like Lichtenstein, or lower tax countries like Switzerland being literally on their doorstep. Again, I think you overestimate tax exile incentives vis a vis the salient core fact that it apparently takes a _lot_ of tax on the ultrawealthy to materially impact their lifestyles to the point they're willing to physically move. The bottom line seems to be that if there is no real lifestyle impact, then the motivation to engage in tax exiling is substantially diminished.

Second, yes, increased cooperation with and pressure on havens would be helpful in combating tax evasion and avoidance. For example, Germany paid millions to a Lichtenstein bank archivist to get info on major tax evaders/avoiders. This information was distributed to England and the States, resulting in the recovery of substantial (relative to the investment) owed tax revenues, and concessions on behalf of the Lichtenstein government and many tax evaders. I believe the subsequent recovery netted in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of Euros; this is a comparative pittance to this form of tax avoidance in general, which features in the tens to hundreds of billions (USD) of lost revenue for your average first world country in a year. International pressure and legislation needs to be applied to so-called tax havens to keep them honest and transparent, and close enabling loopholes (see below).

Related wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Li...ein_tax_affair

Third, off-shore capital flight is huge. Tens of trillions. This is primarily made possible by unregulated/monitored havens, and weak, exploitable tax laws, not changes in residency.

In all, you seem to thoroughly underestimate the impact of complex tax avoidance strategies and haven opacity as major contributing factors to illegal tax evasion, or the exploitation of unintended loopholes.

Quote:
Also you speak here about "loopholes". I'm not sure whether that's a good description for the problem - I mean the countries are free to choose their set of tax sources - consumption? personal income? corporate income? fixed property? inheritance? recreational substances? petrol? It's enough that they choose different taxation base and properly mobile person can surf between jurisdiction and pay less tax than expected.
(yes, they are also weaknesses - even though the same idea is behind American 401k and Polish IKE, other gov could feel complied to tax it as any other investment profit)
The definition of a "loophole" in this case is not a legitimate tax credit, advantage, incentive, or lever of financial influence, but a completely unintended law/code technicality which permits or facilitates tax avoidance/evasion. That is what I am describing as a problem. However, when you mention differences it tax code, it brings up a good point that sufficiently mobile people can attempt to exploit forms of tax arbitrage. This is why coordination between countries is important to prevent these forms of cheating, besides the obvious anti-laundering and evasion benefits.

Quote:
With right to life I have one thing that always bothered me, especially in American case (but because you were first hit with epidemic of obesity anyway you would serve as good case study for other countries that unfortunately follow the same trajectory though slightly slower). It's all right to force a person to pay for other healthcare, (with all punishments prescribed for tax avoidance) but it's not all right to force the recipient to lead a healthy lifestyle (let's think about unimaginative fine for being obese which would be cancelled if the person shows at least some progress, start going for a walk everyday, etc.)? Even though if assessed from life expectancy good lifestyle would matter more than good health plan?
I'm Canadian actually, but obesity is likewise a growing issue here at levels about comparable to other socialist democracies (though not nearly as big of one as in the States, which has more than twice our incidence rate). Further, I'm not personally opposed to levying additional punitive taxes against the obese in cases where their obesity isn't attributable to genetics or psychological disorders (i.e. it's predominantly a lifestyle choice). Fair is fair, and their upkeep places undue burdens upon society. Additionally, I think similar taxes/penalties should be likewise applied to smokers and heavy drinkers who aren't attempting to reform. In this case however, taxing the producing companies is probably more cost effective; in contrast, it's nonsensical to tax 'food' as a whole, though taxing unhealthy/fast food is an idea that appeals to me. These people cannot expect society to foot the bill for their irresponsible life choices.


Several of Kaeso's comments are offensive and beneath contempt, so I will not even give them the dignity of a response or quotation, though kedcoleman summises my stance on so-called 'parasites' without work-ethic. Most welfare systems require proof that you're attempting to seek employment and/or enrolment in job search programs besides, and the standard of living they afford is typically so poor, that I can see only the most chronically dysfunctional people looking to 'exploit' it, short of despicable criminals tax evading via cash jobs.

Furthermore, a broad cross-section of socialist democracies consistently and typically feature superior standards of living and rank higher on political freedom indices vis a vis their 'free' market counterparts as a rule, so the opine that absolute minimal government intervention is best and welfare systems are inherently harmful to society is almost certainly incorrect.

As to the distribution of wealth, the state must absolutely be involved. You simply cannot have wealth immensely and disproportionately concentrated (which is the fast and inevitable outcome of an unmoderated marketplace, and no progressive taxation) and expect capitalism, and democracy to somehow remain intact. The inevitable consequence is plutocracy, corporatism and consolidated monopolies/oligopolies. This is already beginning to happen in the States, where the intermingling of private money, lobbying and government is more problematic, widespread and impactful than ever.

I would also like to see statistics documenting meaningful tax exiling/capital flight as a consequence of Hollande's mandates/legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kedcoleman View Post
I kind of stopped here (bold added by me).
There are plenty of people that work very hard, that strive for "success", that fall into the "poor" category and have - for various reasons not entirely under their control - had a need for social assistance. Now, more so than ever in recent memory. Maybe the career they are in doesn't pay very well. Maybe they had an unexpected medical crisis. Maybe they just have bad luck and didn't win the rich family lottery. There are others that have said it better, and probably will, but saying the poor are poor because of poor work ethic is simply wrong.
I understand that, that's why I didn't say all the poor fall in that category. My point is simply that it's not the task of the state to "baby" every individual citizen. This is also why I believe in charity (or perhaps a workfloor-supported support plan la Hegel) because it reminds the recipient that there is no entitlement to anything, motivating them to get out of their sticky situation as soon as they can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
I understand that, that's why I didn't say all the poor fall in that category. My point is simply that it's not the task of the state to "baby" every individual citizen. This is also why I believe in charity (or perhaps a workfloor-supported support plan la Hegel) because it reminds the recipient that there is no entitlement to anything, motivating them to get out of their sticky situation as soon as they can.
So you think there are significant amount of people who would, once fallen to needing charity due to entitlement issues, then looses the issues and are motivated to work themselves out of their situation because they got that charity? Can't help but feel that this is a blame the victim sort of attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inscribed View Post
So you think there are significant amount of people who would, once fallen to needing charity due to entitlement issues, then looses the issues and are motivated to work themselves out of their situation because they got that charity? Can't help but feel that this is a blame the victim sort of attitude.
No. I simply mean that, once people need charity for whatever reason, they must remain aware of their dependence on the funds of others, something that's more present when given charity than when receiving state-financed wellfare. I believe that this awareness of dependence can serve as an extra motivating factor, and it also keeps the state out of affairs they have nothing to do with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
No. I simply mean that, once people need charity for whatever reason, they must remain aware of their dependence on the funds of others, something that's more present when given charity than when receiving state-financed wellfare. I believe that this awareness of dependence can serve as an extra motivating factor, and it also keeps the state out of affairs they have nothing to do with.
I disagree. I think the state does have an important interest in the welfare of its citizens. I do believe its support role should be limited, serving primarily to keep people alive and in suitable shape to be able to work when such presents itself, but it has a role to play, and should do so. Failing to support those who need it leads to them feeling that they have been taken advantage of, and they are disenfranchised - and disenfranchisement can lead to anti-social and revolutionary actions. As the level of difference between the haves and have-nots in a society increases, the potential for societal breakdown increases, and without society to create and enforce the rules, anarchy can ensue - and the people who have the most to lose quite often do.

So Kaeso, tell me, do you believe the right to life applies only so long as you have the means to afford it, or someone otherwise sees fit to pity you? Do you lose it because you've been unlucky? Because, as an example, in 2007-8, greedy, reckless executives ran the economy into the ground, leaving you chronically un(der)employed by no fault of your own whatsoever?

I'd also like your numbers relating to meaningful, physical entrepreneurial flight, nevermind evidence that this is directly attributable to policy (I'll settle for the former alone).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
No. I simply mean that, once people need charity for whatever reason, they must remain aware of their dependence on the funds of others, something that's more present when given charity than when receiving state-financed wellfare. I believe that this awareness of dependence can serve as an extra motivating factor, and it also keeps the state out of affairs they have nothing to do with.
I have yet to meet someone who is on welfare, food stamps, or a similar program who is not intensely aware of the services they receive. People on Medicare, Social Security Disability, and other programs know exactly how dependent they are on services they receive.

Let me throw into this a somewhat more complex question that I think is the real elephant in the room.

Person A lives in a small community, and has through their own concience and research come to a religious understanding that the rest of the community takes issue with- maybe satanism, wicca, belief in aliens who seeded the planet- whatever the belief nobody will hire them because of this, though of course nobody will say that is why they are not being hired.

So should the people of the community be forced to pay for the survival of a person they are not willing to hire?
On the one hand the argument can be made that they are a victim of these self same people- it is their prejudice that prevents this person from being able to support themsleves. On the other hand the principle of democracy and freedom would suggest that people should not be forced to support another in a belief they find morally objectionable. So whose rights should the government disregard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Let me throw into this a somewhat more complex question that I think is the real elephant in the room.

Person A lives in a small community, and has through their own concience and research come to a religious understanding that the rest of the community takes issue with- maybe satanism, wicca, belief in aliens who seeded the planet- whatever the belief nobody will hire them because of this, though of course nobody will say that is why they are not being hired.

So should the people of the community be forced to pay for the survival of a person they are not willing to hire?
On the one hand the argument can be made that they are a victim of these self same people- it is their prejudice that prevents this person from being able to support themsleves. On the other hand the principle of democracy and freedom would suggest that people should not be forced to support another in a belief they find morally objectionable. So whose rights should the government disregard?
The rights of the one not being hired. The Constitution expressly prohibits making hiring decisions based on religion, class, race, or gender. By not hiring this person due to their differing religious beliefs, the community is violating the US Constitution (per the 1st and 14th amendments). Note that Person A being excluded due to religious beliefs is the key to this - if Person A can't get a job because they dress funny, that's on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
The rights of the one not being hired. The Constitution expressly prohibits making hiring decisions based on religion, class, race, or gender. By not hiring this person due to their differing religious beliefs, the community is violating the US Constitution (per the 1st and 14th amendments).
Who said this society is located in the US?








Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2019-07-18 09:00:08am local time
Myth-Weavers Status