How do the Rich/Wealthy and Powerful use tax havens ? What I mean is do the Rich/Weal

[tradeunionsupporter]

How do the Rich/Wealthy and Powerful use tax havens ? What I mean is do the Rich/Wealthy hide their money and or profits and wealth overseas in Swiss bank accounts do the banks and these other governments just not tell the irs that the rich person has money in their bank also do you know how tax loopholes work ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.htm

Taxation in Islam: Wealth Tax (http://www.revleft.com/index.php/the-khilafah/economy/3324-taxation-in-islam-wealth-tax)

Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:11


Abdul-Kareem

The following article is based on the book Funds in the Khilafah State (http://www.revleft.com/kcom/images/PDF/Books/FundsKhilfah.pdf) which is a translation of Al-Amwal fi Dowlat Al-Khilafah (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/PDF/AR/ar_books_pdf/Amwal.pdf) by Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom.

Wealth Tax

In western capitalist countries their taxation penalises the poor and vulnerable in society. Clever accounting and offshore Swiss bank accounts ensure the rich in western societies can avoid paying the majority of taxes altogether. In the UK for example, the Queen is one of the richest people in Britain yet she pays no income tax, whereas a poor single mother or an old age pensioner must pay income tax. With regressive taxes like the sales taxes on goods and services these hurt the poor more than the rich since the tax rates are the same for both.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/th...lam-wealth-tax

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone know ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone care to share their opinion thank you.

[Judicator]

It's a wonder that the rich are simultaneously able to avoid paying taxes, and yet the top 1% somehow manage to pay a massive fraction of the total taxes collected.

For each 1% of national income captured by the rich, they pay for 2% of income taxes:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

[RichardAWilson]

Yeah, 2% of income taxation. They DON'T pay FICA! They pay a lower proportion on spending (Sales Taxes and Excise Taxes). Plus, those people are often upper-middle class and not the rich. The true rich, like hedge fund managers, pay the CGT and not the income tax. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have an effective tax rate of under 20%!


Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million.

And DAMN! That's his income and not his stock return for 2006 --- which was in the billions! That rate was 15%!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Your right-wing market nonsense is UNINFORMED!

[Judicator]

Yeah, 2% of income taxation. They DON'T pay FICA! They pay a lower proportion on spending (Sales Taxes and Excise Taxes). Plus, those people are often upper-middle class and not the rich. The true rich, like hedge fund managers, pay the CGT and not the income tax. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have an effective tax rate of under 20%!


And despite all of those amazing incentives the top 1% of earners still manage to pay 40% of taxes when they make 20% of the AGI. AGI by the way includes capital gains.



And DAMN! That's his income and not his stock return for 2006 --- which was in the billions! That rate was 15%!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html

Your right-wing market nonsense is UNINFORMED!


One rich man obviously wasn't enough to change the average in my link. Also learn about capital gains, you don't pay until you sell the stock, so less tax now is just more later.

[RichardAWilson]

Less tax is more later? The CGT and Dividend Rate is 15%! Since the rich "earn" more wealth from equities and options than from paychecks, a 15% tax rate is very low and it's damn sure lower than the effective tax on the middle class.

Plus, you said NOTHING of FICA and State and Local Taxation. The rich don't pay FICA (12%!) Almost as much tax revenue comes from FICA as from the Income Tax.

P.S. I trust Warren Buffet's perspective a little more than you own. Sorry dude. Like I said, the true rich pay a low tax rate. Lawyers, doctors and accountants are paying that high rate.

Furthermore, considering more money is expended on corporate welfare than social welfare, the super-rich are receiving more than their fair share in return for what tax they do pay.

Lockheed, General Dynamics and Gunman wouldn't even be in business without perpetual war.

ADM (Midland Company) would suffer heavy losses without the Department of Agriculture.

Big Oil, Coal and Gas would suffer without the Department of Energy and the billions in corporate subsidies that it provides them with.

McGraw Hill would be closed without the Department of Education.

GEO and the Corrections Corporation of America AND Correctional Medical Services would be closed without the Department of Justice.

Numerous banks, airlines and automakers would have been dismantled w/o bailouts

Another thing you forget is that the income tax and public sector deficits are required to operate the Federal Reserve - which primarily benefits the rich. The main supporter of establishing the Fed was none other than?

John Morgan!

Wall Street wanted a Central Bank, one which required an income tax in order to establish. Also, since the Federal Reserve increases the Money Supply via T-Bonds, we had to run public sector deficits, which occured under none other than Woodrow Wilson and a Congress which allowed us to join World War I for that reason.

Wall St's billionaires learned a long time ago that Uncle Sam was needed to maintain casino capitalism. - And casino capitalism is the ultimate outcome of capitalism. Free market pipedreams will remain pipedreams. Hell, I just saw a man on Lou Dobbs (Fox Business) say that the Chamber of Commerce now supports "Big Government" b/c they're making money!

When the rich say they "crave free markets," they don't mean for you and I. They mean more for themselves. Lower taxes for the rich, the same taxes for the middle class in order to fund the Pentagon and corporate subsidies.

Hell, your beloved Koch Brothers wouldn't be rich today if daddy hadn't made deals with Stalin! How did J.P Morgan amass some of his fortune? Well, he was born the son of a wealthy banker, much like Warren Buffet. However, not to be outdone by daddy, John Morgan made hundreds of thousands of dollars during the Civil War (Which would be worth MILLIONS TODAY!) by selling defective guns to our men in uniform.


In the early days of the American Civil War Morgan financed a scheme, known as the "Hall Carbine Affair", that purchased 5,000 dangerously defective Hall's Carbines being liquidated by the U.S. Government at a cost of $3.50 each. The rifles were later resold to the government as new carbines lacking the safety flaw at a cost of $22. The audacity of the scheme included not only the $92,426 loss by the government and the selling of weapons known to maim their operators to an army in need of firearms, but the guns were also sold prior to ownership, thus the guns were paid for with money from their sale back to the government.

How's that for Supply Side Capitalism?

[Judicator]

P.S. I trust Warren Buffet's perspective a little more than you own. Sorry dude. Like I said, the true rich pay a low tax rate. Lawyers, doctors and accountants are paying that high rate.

It's not a question of trust, it's a question of fact. The facts are that the highest earners pay 2% of taxes for each 1% of income they earn. This will include many of the very rich, due to their income generating investments.

[RGacky3]

The facts are that the highest earners pay 2% of taxes for each 1% of income they earn. This will include many of the very rich, due to their income generating investments.

The ruling class in america is less than the top 1%, its more like the top .1% or .01%. But anyway keep in mind capital gains taxes, keep in mind tax loopholes and so on, where they can keep their "income" at a lower rate, while their actual income is higher.

either way, if you look at the income distribution as opposed to the TOTAL tax distribution, the rich are proportionately better off, either way, it does'nt really matter, even a progressive tax is'nt enough because capitalism inherently concentrates wealth.

[RichardAWilson]

He's not concerned with the facts.

He hasn't even responded to FICA and State and Local Taxation being regressive.

The working poor are taxed 12% on payroll. Meanwhile, the super-rich don't contribute on income over $106,800.

Property taxes are also regressive.

A middle class household with a $200,000 home that earns $35,000 is being straddled with a higher effective tax burden than a billionaire with a $50 million home.

He seems to believe the income tax is the only tax in America.

[RichardAWilson]

Mrs. Heinz, wife of John Kerry, has an even lower effective tax rate than Buffet. She invests her multi-billion dollar fortune in tax exempted Municipal Bonds.



Teresa made well over $5 million last year and paid an effective tax rate of 12.3%.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz

Capital returns from stock holdings weren't reported in the number because she didn't exercise her stock holdings. Had she exercised those holdings, her rate would have been closer to 15% - which is still much lower than a middle class registered nurse.

[Nox]

I believe a tax haven is a country in which there are no taxes, e.g. Monaco, so many greedy rich people who don't want to contribute to the very society that allowed them to become rich live there.

[Judicator]

The ruling class in america is less than the top 1%, its more like the top .1% or .01%. But anyway keep in mind capital gains taxes, keep in mind tax loopholes and so on, where they can keep their "income" at a lower rate, while their actual income is higher.

either way, if you look at the income distribution as opposed to the TOTAL tax distribution, the rich are proportionately better off, either way, it does'nt really matter, even a progressive tax is'nt enough because capitalism inherently concentrates wealth.

Is that definition of ruling class specified by Marx or are you just making it up?

What do you mean the rich are proportionately better off?


He hasn't even responded to FICA and State and Local Taxation being regressive.

The working poor are taxed 12% on payroll. Meanwhile, the super-rich don't contribute on income over $106,800.

Property taxes are also regressive.

A middle class household with a $200,000 home that earns $35,000 is being straddled with a higher effective tax burden than a billionaire with a $50 million home.

Feel free to provide numbers that have the entire tax burden broken out by income. As a rough estimate, we know the US median income is under $50,000, so at least 50% of payroll taxes are paid by the top 50% of earners. The vast majority of US tax receipts are income and SS/payroll, roughly 50-50. We already know from the link I provided that the top 50% of earners pay nearly 80% of the taxes, so averaging these together you still get the result that the above median earners pay more than their "share" of taxes.

Property tax regimes are usually X% of property value, so that's a flat tax, not a "regressive" tax.

[RGacky3]

Is that definition of ruling class specified by Marx or are you just making it up?

What do you mean the rich are proportionately better off?


its not specified by marx, he does'nt make a fixed definition of hte ruling class, its basically the people who are powerful enough economically to make political and economic decisions that affect the whole nation and whol states.


What do you mean the rich are proportionately better off?


They benefit more from the tax code.

[Judicator]

its not specified by marx, he does'nt make a fixed definition of hte ruling class, its basically the people who are powerful enough economically to make political and economic decisions that affect the whole nation and whol states.


So rioters and revolutionaries are members of the ruling class, because they make decisions that impact countries?



They benefit more from the tax code.


Benefit measured in what? Dollars? Utility? Happiness? Hours spent doing your taxes?

[RGacky3]

So rioters and revolutionaries are members of the ruling class, because they make decisions that impact countries?


Is that a real question? Are you seriously trying to make that point?

Would you object to me calling a King ruling class and not a rebel in the kingdom?


Benefit measured in what? Dollars? Utility? Happiness? Hours spent doing your taxes?

Dollars, ultimately.

[Judicator]

Is that a real question? Are you seriously trying to make that point?

Would you object to me calling a King ruling class and not a rebel in the kingdom?

It's a rhetorical question to point out that "people who are powerful enough economically to make political and economic decisions that affect the whole nation and whol states" is an inaccurate definition of ruling class. The definition includes rebels, who obviously aren't part of the ruling class.


Dollars, ultimately.

The tax code takes more dollars from the rich, so then they benefit less from the tax code.

[RGacky3]

It's a rhetorical question to point out that "people who are powerful enough economically to make political and economic decisions that affect the whole nation and whol states" is an inaccurate definition of ruling class. The definition includes rebels, who obviously aren't part of the ruling class.


Yes, but you KNOW what I mean, and everyone KNOWS what I mean, so your being anal, rebels don't have institutional power.


The tax code takes more dollars from the rich, so then they benefit less from the tax code.

No they don't, dollar count is'nt important, proportionately is important.

[Judicator]

Yes, but you KNOW what I mean, and everyone KNOWS what I mean, so your being anal, rebels don't have institutional power.

They why didn't you just say the ruling class were those with institutional power?


No they don't, dollar count is'nt important, proportionately is important.

You don't deposit percentages of income in the bank, you deposit dollars. Plus, you said yourself that what was important in determining benefit was "Dollars, ultimately."

[RGacky3]

They why didn't you just say the ruling class were those with institutional power?


Because its a given, and I did'nt think I'd need to spell it out for you.


You don't deposit percentages of income in the bank, you deposit dollars. Plus, you said yourself that what was important in determining benefit was "Dollars, ultimately."

Yes you do deposit percentages, its called a budget. $100 to a person making $25,000 is a lot more money than $200 is to someone making $10,000,0000. Its not that difficult of a concept.

THe fact that you purposely are refusing to get these single concepts either says your not very bright (which I don't think is the case) or that your not an honest debator.

[Judicator]

Because its a given, and I did'nt think I'd need to spell it out for you.

I'm trying to get you to spell it out because the whole idea of the ruling class seems ill-defined. All individuals have some political power, and some have more than others, falling along some kind of continuum. Why do you believe there's some distinct cutoff?


Yes you do deposit percentages, its called a budget. $100 to a person making $25,000 is a lot more money than $200 is to someone making $10,000,0000. Its not that difficult of a concept.

THe fact that you purposely are refusing to get these single concepts either says your not very bright (which I don't think is the case) or that your not an honest debator.

If, as you say, benefits are measured in dollars, taking $100 from anyone is just as bad. If you're going to back down on that claim then fine we can talk about proportionality. If the person making $25,000 gets $100 more, their ability to purchase goods increases just as much as if the person making $10mil gets $100 more.

[RGacky3]

All individuals have some political power, and some have more than others, falling along some kind of continuum. Why do you believe there's some distinct cutoff?


All individuals do not, money talks, a lot, especially in American politics, get your head out of the sand.

As for distinct cutoff, I don't know, neither is it important.


If, as you say, benefits are measured in dollars, taking $100 from anyone is just as bad. If you're going to back down on that claim then fine we can talk about proportionality. If the person making $25,000 gets $100 more, their ability to purchase goods increases just as much as if the person making $10mil gets $100 more.

So your saying taking $100 away from the person making 25k has the same effect as taking it way from someone making 10mil?

Look, are you REALLY trying to make this argument? Because if thats what you are trying to say, I'll let you say it and just let your statement stand, because its so rediculous it condemns itself.

[Judicator]

All individuals do not, money talks, a lot, especially in American politics, get your head out of the sand.

As for distinct cutoff, I don't know, neither is it important.


Money is important, therefore individual voters are irrelevant? Meg Whitman spent $300mil vs. Jerry Brown's $30mil and lost.



So your saying taking $100 away from the person making 25k has the same effect as taking it way from someone making 10mil?

Look, are you REALLY trying to make this argument? Because if thats what you are trying to say, I'll let you say it and just let your statement stand, because its so rediculous it condemns itself.


This is the logical result of your words, not mine.

You said benefit is measured in dollars. This would mean $1 to anyone is the same in terms of benefit. The consequences should be obvious.

[RGacky3]

Money is important, therefore individual voters are irrelevant? Meg Whitman spent $300mil vs. Jerry Brown's $30mil and lost.


never said it was irrelivant, I'm saying money is hugely important, which kills democracy, you know they had voting in the USSR too.


This is the logical result of your words, not mine.


No its not, I'm saying taxing the poor is much worse,


ou said benefit is measured in dollars. This would mean $1 to anyone is the same in terms of benefit. The consequences should be obvious.

No I said it matter proportionately ... Your arguing against yourself here, if you want to embarrass yourself we can go back and I'll show you the arguments.

[Judicator]

never said it was irrelivant, I'm saying money is hugely important, which kills democracy, you know they had voting in the USSR too.

Candidates spending money doesn't compel me to vote for them. I'm still free to do whatever research I want and vote accordingly. This wasn't the case in the USSR.



No I said it matter proportionately ... Your arguing against yourself here, if you want to embarrass yourself we can go back and I'll show you the arguments.


ME: Benefit measured in what? Dollars? Utility? Happiness? Hours spent doing your taxes?
YOU: Dollars, ultimately.

This would mean equal dollars means equal benefit. No mention of proportionality.

[RGacky3]

Candidates spending money doesn't compel me to vote for them. I'm still free to do whatever research I want and vote accordingly. This wasn't the case in the USSR.


Yeah, but iaffects both public policy and hte information out there and man people don't have time to do research.


ME: Benefit measured in what? Dollars? Utility? Happiness? Hours spent doing your taxes?
YOU: Dollars, ultimately.

This would mean equal dollars means equal benefit. No mention of proportionality.

I've stated the whole time that it matters proportionately, the fact that you can't get this shows either your stupid, or purposefully missreading me.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is a tax haven when the foreign Banks and or the foreign Governments won't tell the IRS that an Wealthy or Rich American has Money hidden in their Banks ?

[RGacky3]

thats just one example, but its not by far the most common.

[Judicator]

Yeah, but iaffects both public policy and hte information out there and man people don't have time to do research.

They are still free to ignore any ad they see.


I've stated the whole time that it matters proportionately, the fact that you can't get this shows either your stupid, or purposefully missreading me.

So why you said "dollars, ultimately" is beyond me if you in fact think dollars are irrelevant and proportionality is the only thing that matters. Is this a misreading?

[RGacky3]

They are still free to ignore any ad they see.


Yes, and people in the USSR were still "Free" to vote no for candidates.

We are not talking theoretically here, we are talking reality, and in reality public policy is far far away from public opinion.


So why you said "dollars, ultimately" is beyond me if you in fact think dollars are irrelevant and proportionality is the only thing that matters. Is this a misreading?

Yes its a misreading, dollars are relevent proportionately, if you want I can spell it out for you word for word so you understand it absolutely, btw, its funny that no one else missunderstood what I said.

[Judicator]

Yes, and people in the USSR were still "Free" to vote no for candidates.

We are not talking theoretically here, we are talking reality, and in reality public policy is far far away from public opinion.

How is advertising in the US where there is a multitude of sources available and a mostly free internet in any way similar to voting in the USSR? Why do you make these hyperbolic comparisons?

The ability of policy to deviate from the public stated view is completely separate from the question of advertising's impact on public opinion. If anything, your view that the public disagrees with many government policies is at odds with your view on advertising's ability to "buy" elections. If the public is so easily swayed by policy ads, why do they still disagree with policies these ads support?


Yes its a misreading, dollars are relevent proportionately, if you want I can spell it out for you word for word so you understand it absolutely, btw, its funny that no one else missunderstood what I said.

Last I checked "dollars" isn't a synonym for share of income or relative income. If you're going to redefine the word please be clear about it or use other language.

Anyway, I'd be happy to have you spell out clearly what you think about how and why to measure "benefit" from tax code or economic policy.

"btw," not too many others in this thread.

[RGacky3]

How is advertising in the US where there is a multitude of sources available and a mostly free internet in any way similar to voting in the USSR? Why do you make these hyperbolic comparisons?

Well, in the US you have 2 choices in the USSR you had 1 party, your right hte internet has changed a lot, but iwthout it you basically only have the mainstream media, which are dominated by corporate interests.


The ability of policy to deviate from the public stated view is completely separate from the question of advertising's impact on public opinion. If anything, your view that the public disagrees with many government policies is at odds with your view on advertising's ability to "buy" elections. If the public is so easily swayed by policy ads, why do they still disagree with policies these ads support?


WHat public policy compared to public opinion shows is how democratic a society really is, if the democratic institutions work, which in the US, they do not.

Buying elections is not the same as buying politicians, btw, advertisers cater not to what politicians will do, but what people want (look at campaign obama vrs real obama), they also use post politics jobs, they use investments, and so on.


Last I checked "dollars" isn't a synonym for share of income or relative income. If you're going to redefine the word please be clear about it or use other language.


I'm sorry I was'nt clear enough, next time I will be.


Anyway, I'd be happy to have you spell out clearly what you think about how and why to measure "benefit" from tax code or economic policy.


If rich people pay a less percentage of their income in overall tax, they benfit more, btw, they also have more property, meaning they benefit more from property laws and protections, they have more corporations holdings, meaning they benefit more from corporate laws, chances are they definately benefit more from police, they have more stocks, so they benefit more from wars and other things that boost stocks, they benefit from the government much much more, and pay less overall percentages of their taxes ....

Its not rocket science.

[Judicator]

[1]Well, in the US you have 2 choices in the USSR you had 1 party, your right hte internet has changed a lot, but iwthout it you basically only have the mainstream media, which are dominated by corporate interests.

[2]WHat public policy compared to public opinion shows is how democratic a society really is, if the democratic institutions work, which in the US, they do not.

[3]Buying elections is not the same as buying politicians, btw, advertisers cater not to what politicians will do, but what people want (look at campaign obama vrs real obama), they also use post politics jobs, they use investments, and so on.

[4]If rich people pay a less percentage of their income in overall tax, they benfit more, btw, they also have more property, meaning they benefit more from property laws and protections, they have more corporations holdings, meaning they benefit more from corporate laws, chances are they definately benefit more from police, they have more stocks, so they benefit more from wars and other things that boost stocks, they benefit from the government much much more, and pay less overall percentages of their taxes ....

[1] So ignore the mainstream and go online.

[2] When you vote for a politician, you vote for a package of ideas, rather than a single one. Nothing undemocratic there (unless your only kind of democracy is direct, lol). It's completely plausible that after everyone has voted you get a group of politicians passing policies with only 40% "popular support"...since people elected them based on their collection of beliefs, rather than that particular one with 40% support.

[3] If the electorate is easily duped, is that the fault of the electorate or the fault of the politicians?

[4]As you pointed out, what we really have to look at are both costs and benefits. If a poor person makes $10,000, pays $1,000 in taxes, and gets $5,000 worth of benefits, he is effectively being taxed at negative 40%. Not all income groups can have this negative effective rate, so the rich or middle class would have to make up the difference.

[RGacky3]

1. yeah, on an individual basis that is smar, does'nt undo the bigger picture, unless you manage to tell everyone to do that someohow.

2. Actually when you vote for a politician many times its impossible to tell what the actoins will come out, (Obama for example), what he says on the campaign is one thing.

Whats undemocratic is the overall system, the elections are basically boiled down to a couple acceptable discussion points (pro or anti gay marriage, more or less taxes) and most other things are consequently left off the table, whether or not they are supported by public opinion or not.

The fact is, public policy on many many different issues are different from public opinion, and this is not juts because of campaign ads, its the fact that many politicians go in and out of goverment nad corporate jobs, and other factors.

3. So you'll blaim the propeganda effects of the USSr on the people too?

4. Yeah, but I'm saying the rich actually get MORE benefit overall, the people paying the difference are the chinese.