Froome - British?

VmanF3

skylark wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like you, I have a 7 and 5 year old...

With the greatest of respect, shouldn't you be devoting your time to them?
Rather than to the Internet, especially to the Bottom Bracket thread on a forum? I fear what you'd take away from reading this forum, if anything, to show to your kids. Why call yourself Ebola?

Sorry.

Kids are now in bed, please may I have permission to use the Internet?

morstar

VTech wrote:

The problem is that your idealism doesn't work (it's ideal though) !

Let's say your on £10m a year and the option is to pay £800,000 or £55,000,000 what do you pick ?

Now if you paid a flat 20% the government would make more money as there would be far less need to use avoidance systems. The government make nothing when people bank abroad as move.

So please answer me this...
Why is it acceptable to demonize and vilify benefits shirkers and skivers but super rich tax dodgers get a free ride?
Both can be pretty vile patterns of behaviour.
For froome specifically, I don't think he owes Britain anything and I guess that answers OPs question for me.

ballysmate

The problem is that the rich think that all the wealth generation is down to themselves whereas infact it is down to the workers who make things. If all the rich left, the remaining population wouldn't sit around looking confused - some bright folk would work out how to use that vast untapped asset and it would all begin again. The great rich wealth creators are all entirely expendable - if one goes, another will take their place.That's how capitalism works.

Wealth generation is a 2 way street. The strivers can't amass wealth without workers and the workers starve without someone generating business.
The wealth creators are not expendable because as you yourself point out, someone has to pick up the baton and replace them. The whole system relies on wealth trickling down. Big multinationals eg car makers buy parts and components from smaller companies who in turn buy materials from someone else.
If no-one was prepared to go out and amass more wealth than they actually needed, the whole system comes crashing down. I have to be honest and say that if I had millions sat in the bank, I wouldn't feel inclined to work myself into an early grave, striving for more. But people do, that is what creates jobs for the rest of us.
For these people it probably isn't about the money, because as people have said on here, they couldn't possibly spend it. (Unless they are married to my missus), it is about the buzz and challenge to turn 1m into 10m, 10m into 100m.
I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, even including footballers and pop stars who are paid millions for contributing little. If someone is daft enough to pay them that sort of money, who am I to say it is wrong?

That's just greed. If you have a £10m tax bill, you're clearly earning a salary that covers a bit of loose change. Renumeration takes into account taxation, which is why earnings increase upwards on exponential curves.

I'm all for rewarding hard work and success but at what point do you acknowledge that your income is disproportionate to any sense of real worth. The only positive I see in tax havens for super rich is if they wish to distribute some of their wealth altruistically to their own agenda rather than a governments. Otherwise it's just greed

You are correct, remuneration does take into taxation. But, and I am not suggesting this be implemented, but just giving the logical flip side to that premise. If you reduce taxation, you would reduce remuneration.

As I said, I have no objection at all to other people's wealth and income but agree that people should all contribute via the tax system, but taxes should not be punitive. Finding a level that people regard as being reasonable has always been the bone of contention. After all how many people on here would lobby for their own tax bill to be significantly increased?

VTech

morstar wrote:

VTech wrote:

The problem is that your idealism doesn't work (it's ideal though) !

Let's say your on £10m a year and the option is to pay £800,000 or £55,000,000 what do you pick ?

Now if you paid a flat 20% the government would make more money as there would be far less need to use avoidance systems. The government make nothing when people bank abroad as move.

So please answer me this...
Why is it acceptable to demonize and vilify benefits shirkers and skivers but super rich tax dodgers get a free ride?
Both can be pretty vile patterns of behaviour.
For froome specifically, I don't think he owes Britain anything and I guess that answers OPs question for me.

What makes you think that I agree with tax dodgers ?
I'm saying its an inbred thing due to crazy tax regulations making it productive to look for alternatives.

4kicks

Ballysmate wrote:

Wealth generation is a 2 way street. The strivers can't amass wealth without workers and the workers starve without someone generating business.
The wealth creators are not expendable because as you yourself point out, someone has to pick up the baton and replace them. The whole system relies on wealth trickling down.
I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, even including footballers and pop stars who are paid millions for contributing little. If someone is daft enough to pay them that sort of money, who am I to say it is wrong?

This. The issue with our civilization is there seems to be a mutual resentment - rich seem to hate the poor for not contributing enough, poor hate the rich for taking too much, and the chattering middle classes hate pretty much anyone who isn't white, anglo-saxon and a Daily Mail reader.

The concept of rich "taking their money elsewhere" is slowly (too slowly) being negated (you've got to admire the German tax authority who paid a large bribe to get access to Germans banking in Switzerland), and for the economists amongst you, the Laffer taxation curve has now been thoroughly disproved, but the whole idea of "why should I pay more tax if I earn more?" has just one simple response. "Because you can. " Failure to appreciate that income tax should be a progressive tax is a failure to understand that a high earning job is a consequence of a number of factors, many of which are ineluctable, such as Education, intelligence, luck, good supporting cast, heritage, etc etc.

Of course no one thinks their tax bill should be increased, I pay a shed load of various taxes over here and whine every time I have to cut the cheque, but frankly part of the philosophy of being a high earner needs to be that you are also a high contributor. If you don't buy into that, then by all means sod off to Monacco - a more soulless place Ive yet to see...

Stevo_666

4kicks wrote:

The concept of rich "taking their money elsewhere" is slowly (too slowly) being negated (you've got to admire the German tax authority who paid a large bribe to get access to Germans banking in Switzerland), and for the economists amongst you, the Laffer taxation curve has now been thoroughly disproved, but the whole idea of "why should I pay more tax if I earn more?" has just one simple response. "Because you can. " Failure to appreciate that income tax should be a progressive tax is a failure to understand that a high earning job is a consequence of a number of factors, many of which are ineluctable, such as Education, intelligence, luck, good supporting cast, heritage, etc etc.

Of course no one thinks their tax bill should be increased, I pay a shed load of various taxes over here and whine every time I have to cut the cheque, but frankly part of the philosophy of being a high earner needs to be that you are also a high contributor. If you don't buy into that, then by all means sod off to Monacco - a more soulless place Ive yet to see...

Show me some reliable evidence that the Laffer curve has been thoroughly disproved.

A good example of raising taxes not working can be seen on HMRC's own website where they report on the impact of raising the top rate of income tax to 50%:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf
One of the main conclusions? The yield was much lower than expected and 'possibly negative'. Looks like the 50% rate (which was no more than a piece of 'scorched earth' policy by the outgoing Brown administration) is past the top of the curve. Not quite as bad as when the top rate of income tax was 83% in the 1970s and the Government of the day had to go to the IMF for a bail out. I wonder why....

Your idea that people will pay more just 'because they can' is at best naive. The HMRC survey shows that a lot won't. Part of it is because you're missing the main factor why a lot of high earners are high earners - hard work. If someone has worked their balls off to get to where they are, it's very understandable why they wouldn't want to give most of away.

The other factor is corporates - a lot of the most mobile capital is in the hands of multinationals and from direct experience I know that tax is a factor in where they invest. Clearly there's more to it than just tax but it is a factor and the amounts involved are huge. At least the Govt realises this, which is why they are dropping corporate rates to 20% (along with many other countries which have dropped rates over time because they also realise it is in their best interests). Overall they expect to boost tax revenues as with the increased investment comes the jobs, which raises income tax, VAT and so on.

Punitive rates are counter productive - as HMRC themselves have found out.

4kicks

I totally agree that corporates are "a horse of a different color" and that their approach to taxation is a huge issue best solved at an inter-govenrmental level (why did no-one make higher corporate taxes and higher transparency a precondition of Switzerlands trade agreement with the EU, fe).

Evidence for the Laffer curve´s failure? Milton Friedman, Reganomics and the "three trillion Dollars" defect the US had (although I grant you that messed up personal taxation was but one of the failings of the entire supplyside falacy and that the Chicago School was a confederacy of dunces).

Im not naive enough to believe every high earner will gladly hand over hard earned cash to the UK taxman - but there has been considerable research to confirm that higher salaries are more about social comparison (am I earning more than the chairman of the other UK bank?) as about consumption, so governments and society need to convert that need for status into a public good. My long and rambling point boils down to as opposed to berating a high earner, surely its more productive to say - great, now what about a charitable foundation with your name on it as a lasting legacy a la Bill & Melinda Gates...

Mikey23

@skylark... No one taking you up on the offer to start a religious discussion. Preps just as well. RD is indeed a muppet but you have to admire his willingness to regurgitate the same old crap in book after book in order to prove the unprovable. The faith communities owe him a huge debt!

skylark

Mikey23 wrote:

@skylark... No one taking you up on the offer to start a religious discussion. Preps just as well. RD is indeed a muppet but you have to admire his willingness to regurgitate the same old crap in book after book in order to prove the unprovable. The faith communities owe him a huge debt!

I'm sorry you had to jog my memory there for a moment.

Yes indeed you have faith and religion at the one extreme and then you have RD types at the very other. You know what they say about people beating on the same mantra over and over again. They are the ones trying to convince themselves.

Frankly there appear to be no clear cut answers or solutions to many of the problems or issues in this world, and certainly not least us. Most of our issues and predicaments are the products of a very innate Human creation. The problems and failures we see and try to resolve are likely our own creation.

The Human Mind is a very feeble thing. We think we ought to know but we're merely a crop going about our paltry lives day in, day out.

ballysmate

Mikey23 wrote:

@skylark... No one taking you up on the offer to start a religious discussion. Preps just as well. RD is indeed a muppet but you have to admire his willingness to regurgitate the same old crap in book after book in order to prove the unprovable. The faith communities owe him a huge debt!

I am unfamiliar with the works of Dawkins, who it appears is an atheist. I am quite happy to discuss religions with anyone on here, without denigrating their beliefs. Could be interesting.

Mikey23

Perhaps a different thread then... Previous experience in different circumstances is that everybody lobs brickbats from their entrenched position, nothing ever gets sorted, everybody falls out ... And it all ends in tears.

A ideal topic for BB methinks... Let me think of a suitable opening question while I get tea ready. And of course will have to get approval from missus ;-)

ballysmate

Mikey23 wrote:

Perhaps a different thread then... Previous experience in different circumstances is that everybody lobs brickbats from their entrenched position, nothing ever gets sorted, everybody falls out ... And it all ends in tears.

A ideal topic for BB methinks... Let me think of a suitable opening question while I get tea ready. And of course will have to get approval from missus ;-)

We know she doesn't like swearing, what are her thoughts on blasphemy?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

blasphemy

The ultimate victimless crime?

Religious debate would be a fun BB topic to liven things up

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

blasphemy

The ultimate victimless crime?

Religious debate would be a fun BB topic to liven things up

Does Ian Paisley own a bike. :roll:
Get him to log on.

Frank Wilson

The whole British debate is a nonsense as when he get's his inevitable OBE / CBE or whatever it will be presented by a German.