Stephen King tells rich people upset over tax increases: ‘Tough s**t’

[captain morgan]

Who's on the ropes and how did they get there?

The 'rich' will rapidly relocate themselves and their money at the first hint of any fool hardy proposal like was just mentioned. On top of that, no money will flow into an economy like that, so basically, you'll condemn those that elect to remain or can't move to a pretty miserable life.

The 'poor' have just as many options as the 'rich'.. What you're moaning about is the notion that it has to be earned.

Whether or not the 'poor' really cared about the stock market crash is irrelevant. What does count though is that there was no new money flowing into the system that would spur growth, create jobs and generate taxes to pay for all the entitlements that folks now deem as their rights... So, who do you think really paid the price on that one - those that can still afford their lifestyle or those that rely heavily on the jobs and social services to keep their head above water

 

[Machjo]

Extra taxes on the rich is often a mistake- rich people by and large know how to grow money, the Gov't doesn't. Money in the hands of the rich goes to pay employees and quite often to charities, while money in the hands of Gov't gets squandered, much of it on bureaucracy.

You are right overall. We can't deny though that there is always at least some luck involved, in which the person got a good educaiton, or good parents to raise and encourage him, a supportive environment, and just general luck that causes things to fall into place, and then he's on a rol from there. Just as a person could end up poor due to bad luck after awhile tearing down his determination, or a disability, deaf, blind, etc.

So it's a catch-22. You don't want the government to squander that money, you still want public funds to give the deserving poor a hands up, and you don't want to tax the rich too much.

One possibility if we must raise taxes is to make charitable contributions 100% income-tax-deductible on a 1:1 ratio, or introducing a resource tax so as to ensure that those who spend wisely will not have to pay taxes.

 

[mentalfloss]

The 'rich' will rapidly relocate themselves and their money at the first hint of any fool hardy proposal like was just mentioned.

The 'poor' have just as many options as the 'rich'.. What you're moaning about is the notion that it has to be earned.

Whether or not the 'poor' really cared about the stock market crash is irrelevant. What does count though is that there was no new money flowing into the system that would spur growth, create jobs and generate taxes to pay for all the entitlements that folks now deem as their rights.

That is one way to look at it, but you have to qualify what kind of raise gets the rich to move, that the poor have just as many options as the rich, that people deem the services received as their 'rights'.

I understand you are very passionate, but you're hardly making any objective statements.

 

[gore0bsessed]

As far as the people that DON'T make lots of money, they still should contribute something OR lower their expectations relative to what services/benefits that they believe are their inalienable right to receive.

This is just bad and immoral thinking and if you were in the unfortunate position of being unable to contribute as much as you would like , you'd still like to believe you're entitled to the best health care, emergency services , etc.
You would change your tune faster than Ayn Rand on social safety nets when her health was failing.

 

[JLM]

You are right overall. We can't deny though that there is always at least some luck involved, in which the person got a good educaiton, or good parents to raise and encourage him, a supportive environment, and just general luck that causes things to fall into place, and then he's on a rol from there. Just as a person could end up poor due to bad luck after awhile tearing down his determination, or a disability, deaf, blind, etc.

So it's a catch-22. You don't want the government to squander that money, you still want public funds to give the deserving poor a hands up, and you don't want to tax the rich too much.

One possibility if we must raise taxes is to make charitable contributions 100% income-tax-deductible on a 1:1 ratio, or introducing a resource tax so as to ensure that those who spend wisely will not have to pay taxes.

Perhaps we should take a close look at who funds many scholarships!

 

[mentalfloss]

This is just bad and immoral thinking and if you were in the unfortunate position of being unable to contribute as much as you would like , you'd still like to believe you're entitled to the best health care, emergency services , etc.
You would change your tune faster than Ayn Rand on social safety nets when her health was failing.

Ayn Rand. Now there's a complete quack.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps we should take a close look at who funds many scholarships!

True enough. I'd say make such funding fully tax deductible on a 1:1 ratio, that way if even if the government raises taxes on the rich and the rich don't trust the government will use that money wisely, they can tehn give to charity and claim it that way so as to keep the government's grubby hands off of that money.

 

[mentalfloss]

True enough. I'd say make such funding fully tax deductible on a 1:1 ratio, that way if even if the government raises taxes on the rich and the rich don't trust the government will use that money wisely, they can tehn give to charity and claim it that way so as to keep the government's grubby hands off of that money.

As long as those charities aren't publicly funded already?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think a simple flat tax on EVERYBODY and every dollar would be much simpler. Make more, you will lose N% to the govt. You aren't punnished for making more and you can't get out of paying either.

 

[Machjo]

As long as those charities aren't publicly funded already?

Well I'd rather the rich give the money directly to the charities rather than have it filter through a large combersome bureaucracy with the dregs then finally getting to the bottom.

 

[WLDB]

Extra taxes on the rich is often a mistake- rich people by and large know how to grow money, the Gov't doesn't. Money in the hands of the rich goes to pay employees and quite often to charities, while money in the hands of Gov't gets squandered, much of it on bureaucracy.

Citizens cant pay their national debt on their own. It has to go through the government eventually.

 

[captain morgan]

That is one way to look at it, but you have to qualify what kind of raise gets the rich to move, that the poor have just as many options as the rich, that people deem the services received as their 'rights'.

I understand you are very passionate, but you're hardly making any objective statements.

I disagree, the statements I am making are not as speculative as you may think.. Companies like Haliburton and Invesco (?) moved from the USA based on their belief that the tax rates would be hiked on them. Now, all of the corporate profits that they make go to benefiting the communities in another nation. That move was not the result of a massive swing in tax rates, but on the suggestion that they may increase.

Individual people are really no different; they are the same factors that motivate people to seek sale items or contribute to a RRSP.

 

[Machjo]

I think a simple flat tax on EVERYBODY and every dollar would be much simpler. Make more, you will lose N% to the govt. You aren't punnished for making more and you can't get out of paying either.

That could work too, as long as money invested in business can be deducted from income taxes, only to be paid when the money is taken out of the business.

 

[captain morgan]

This is just bad and immoral thinking and if you were in the unfortunate position of being unable to contribute as much as you would like , you'd still like to believe you're entitled to the best health care, emergency services , etc.
You would change your tune faster than Ayn Rand on social safety nets when her health was failing.

Here's the 411 for you Einstein - social services, healthcare, etc ALL cost money, a lot of money in fact... If you can't imagine what the consequences are of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, then all your stating is that you want Cadillac service at a Yugo price and that it is morally correct to expect such.

The world doesn't work that way and all of the unicorns and rainbows posted on your desktop won't change that reality.

 

[mentalfloss]

I disagree, the statements I am making are not as speculative as you may think.. Companies like Haliburton and Invesco (?) moved from the USA based on their belief that the tax rates would be hiked on them. Now, all of the corporate profits that they make go to benefiting the communities in another nation. That move was not the result of a massive swing in tax rates, but on the suggestion that they may increase.

That didn't happen last month when there was the suggestion of raising taxes on the rich and that motion actually went through.

 

[captain morgan]

What are the details on this?

 

[mentalfloss]

What are the details on this?

It was part of the Ontario budget. It passed, and no one is crying. No corporations are leaving.

 

[captain morgan]

It was part of the Ontario budget. It passed, and no one is crying. No corporations are leaving.

When does the tax come into effect?

In the meantime, consider this; when Que had their last referendum, CP Rail relocated the HQ along with 2500 jobs from Montreal to Calgary. Ever wonder why the chose AB as opposed to more obvious hubs like Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg?

 

[MHz]

The money liberated would be about $750T and the combined world debt is about $250T. Any idea how bad of an accountant you would have to be to put those books into the 'red'?

 

[captain morgan]

Governments are chalk-full of empire builders and social engineers that would have us in the red in no time at all... Interesting idea none the less, annexing all of the wealth on the planet to establish a workers paradise.

It's failed miserably in all past attempts, but who knows, maybe it'll work out this time.