Will Raising Taxes Cause The Rich To Leave The United States Or Are They Bluffing?

Those influenced by Marx always end up here. The Marxist-socialist state must, of necessity, be a police state. If one disagrees with the Marxist view one is a traitor who betrays.

The sad state of affairs is that we let Marxists teach in our schools.

 

The Capitalist American Business men are depending on the Intellectual Marxist Europeans, to fill their high skilled labor demands.

So Capitalists are either traitors to Americans for outsourcing jobs to Marxist Europeans, or have a secret affection towards Marxism.

 

Before you respond you really ought to think.

Intellectuals tend to become Marxists out of envy. They are unable to make it in a world where talent and drive result in achievements based on merit. So they look around for an alternative where they can believe they will become all-powerful masterminds. It is pathetic really. Dangerous. But pathetic.

 

They aren't going anywhere.

And in virtually ANY nation where there is prosperity, there will be those who know that the 'concerted' efforts (commonwealth, leading to overall mutual benefit)... is as important as people's individual achievements.

America will be fine, as soon as we put more of the power back into the hands of the people, and take more of the same (over the people) out of the hands of corporations.

Yes, capitalism is good as a tool, but once we detect trends of that tool being misused (or worshiped and revered, as though it were a religion or equal to government), steps should always be taken to guard against or mitigate the same.

 

The CEO of Coke says China is more business friendly than America? And he is just one...

Are you sure they aren't going anywhere?

 

Which has nothing to do with the reason he gave for expanding one of their plants in Spain instead of the US.

Why Spain? We already have a wholly owned subsidiary in Spain. Spain has a high level of unemployment with plenty of skilled workers and engineers ready to work when the plant is built. Spain does tax business but luring new business with lowered tax bills is also a policy that does its job. Over the 10 to 15 year program we expect to drop our tax bill on those industrial devices by near 80%. And if the US is stupid enough to not let us return the profits to the US we will just continue to invest them overseas. ​

You really aught to pay attention when people explain things to you. His first point was simply that multinational companies do not owe the US anything if they can get a better deal in Europe, or in this case Spain.

Business owes no more to the US than US owes to business. Corporate taxes charged against mobile capital can and frequently is passed on to labor. Depending on the conditions they also pass on taxes to consumers. The basic truism is, "corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes," so the mistake is not with business, it is with the stupidity of government and people who want "corporations" to pay taxes. According to various sources the actual business share of federal income taxes is 2.7%. That one fact alone should tell those stupid people that they are peeing into a fan.

 

The saddest thing about his assertions is, he mistakenly believes that just because a company expands into another country which is cutting them tax slack such that the company won't continue to make profits of of US customers. He is wrong! If the company's costs can be cut manufacturing over seas and shipping the product back to the US, that company now has a competitive advantage and the company makes more profit.

 

Multinational companies are American companies first and foremost, they can't just evade America taxes because they do business in other countries. Overseas profits should be taxed by both countries, what they are doing is moving money to other countries rather than invest in the US, then plan to keep that money overseas. It is not happening, it is a rip off to Americans.

Raising taxes helps the economy, President Clinton did it and we had sustained growth until W came in and ruined not just the US but the world..

Businesses have to be taxed otherwise their profits are consolidated to be shared only with their shareholders and employees, that leaves the rest of Americans without any for welfare expenditures.

Agree that the actual business share of federal income taxes is 2.7%, that is why they should pay more into the government. At the very least, have the same tax rates as Individuals. After all Corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals according to the recent Supreme Court decision, which allows them to purchase policies and lobby for lawmakers.

 

Multinationals only have loyalty to the shareholders who want max return on investment. America has advantages for sure, with many of those companies starting there so its always a balance in relocation costs. new work force, stable govt ect. Of course they also have the $US and the largest consumer society in the world, so lots of advantages to stay, however theres always a tipping point and thats why so many manufacturing jobs have vanished from the West.

If raising taxes helps the economy why not tax 100% - we'll then have the lefts Marxist collectivist utopia. All taxes act as an overhead for business, ultimately they're the ones that pay. Tax an individual more and more they'll seek pay increase to maintain their standard of living. Although there can be a tipping point there as well, once you have so many unemployed workers have decreased leverage for pay rises, their standard of living falls for doing the same amount of work. There becomes less incentive to actually work.

This is why Govt (both sides) obey their masters and subjugate its people to mass immigration.They dont care about your standard of living, the quality of your society, only the profits. They can hold wage inflation from increased taxes back with technology advancements, gaining political favor to monopolize their industry while they have a large pool of unemployed. They're quite happy for the class warfare to go on, keep taxing the individuals, since the real power brokers only make a tiny percentage of their money via wages.

 

Like I said, so long as the US over taxes corporations they will look elsewhere.

BTW, what makes you think the multinationals are American? Didn't you read that post? It is the Spanish subsidiary doing the expansion and will ship goods back to the US. Corporations will never pay more in taxes. They may send the $$$ to the treasury but it will be the consumer or labor who actually pay the taxes. It is foolish to believe companies will not max their bottom line by not passing the taxes along or earning the money overseas. If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that multinational companies tend to invest where their market is providing costs are not prohibitive. America has let them down, not they the US.

They will still not give it to anyone who is not a shareholder or employee since they don't even pay most of the taxes levied on them now.

Your views will drive the prosperity out of the country.

 

Government must tax these multinational companies out of business, they should not operate in the US as long as they outsource profits and jobs.

At some point they won't be able to pass all the taxation expenses to the consumer, and lose demand for their products and services. They will be deported for unpatriotic business practices, and government enterprises will replace them and create jobs here at home.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

Correct, they don't pass all taxes onto consumers, even more is passed onto labor.

BTW, until we become a dictatorship which controls all aspects of our economy your proposals CAN'T be accomplished, and if that happens half or more of the rich will join all of the middle class which will be joining the poor.

 

The rich will never leave the US. The tax advantages that they enjoy here can not be had anywhere else. They would be losing money.

 

In fact many "rich" companies have left the US because other countries have given them a tax break to move. But just as important, companies and individuals have been steadily leaving high tax and highly unionized states for states with a more pro-business attitude and policy.

 

Scientists call the US republican party a corporate propaganda group. The republicans say 100's of lies from "tax cuts increase government revenues" to "global warming is not happening", and the purpose of all of their lies is to increase rich peoples and large corporations income.

Propaganda groups almost always use fear tactics, and the US republicans do the same.
They say "the democrats will turn us into communists"
They say "the democrats health care laws will take away your grandmothers doctor."
They say "Obama wants to set up death panels."
They say "if we stop global warming it will destroy Americas economy."
They say "the democrats want to outlaw (all) guns"

And they say "if we raise taxes on the rich they will leave America."
(its just a fear tactic to keep rich peoples taxes low)

Lets look at the facts.
Were in the hell are the rich people going to go?
to Somalia ?
to Russia?
to China ?

America is a highly industrialized country, and if America's rich run they will run to a highly industrialized country.
Countries like Germany, England, Switzerland, ex.ex. are their only places to run.
And all of these countries have highly progressive tax systems, and US democrats would never raise rich peoples (personal) tax rates to European levels.

Many US corporations are already moving their head headquarters to other small island countries. But nothing can stop this because these countries offer tax rates so low that its a scam. We just can't make taxes that low.


Or look at it this way there's 2 kinds of people democrats and republicans.
Democrat billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet actually want to pay higher taxes.
But republican billionaires like the Koch brothers want trickle down tax cuts.

CEO Dick Cheney's corporation Haliburton has already moved its headquarters to Dubui for insane low tax rates.


Some greedy republican CEO's will leave no matter what.
But most will wait around and try to get the following $6.6 trillion dollar tax cut.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/07/313068/romneys-tax-plan-cost-6-6-trillion/

And Wall Street CEO's are not going anywhere. They are waiting for the republicans to privatize Social Security (so they can charge $750 billion dollars in fees.) No other country has $750 billion dollars to give them. All the CEO's are waiting for this.

We should pass laws to stop Americas CEO's from moving corporations to places like Dubui. But if you listen to republicans talk they will tell you "the rich made all the right choices, and CEO's have the right to do anything they want." (republicans literally say things like that)



The following Australian made documentary has scientists and other experts explaining the "corporate propaganda" used by US republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAzYWmsiwI


If a republican was intelligent enough to know what Fox news and the Koch brothers were doing to them (they would want to kill them.)
But if you watch the republican idiots in the documentary, you will see they are not smart enough to comprehend it.

Watch the documentary, the CEO's who fund Fox news control US republicans like puppets (there's no bigger chump than a US republican.)

 

The rich and the near rich do leave. I moved from the failed state of California in 2006. Many others just like me have moved out of that failed state into states more friendly to people who create wealth.

 

Thank you! There is never a reason for a company or wealthy person to remain loyal to a state or a country which is not equally loyal to them. And how about Boeing starting what is a incremental move to South Carolina?

Business does not exist to give no owner individuals prosperity. They exist to maximize wealth for those who own the business. Taxing business does not raise much revenue for the government, but it does cost consumers and labor money reducing the very point left wing nuts claim business tax is there for; increase progressiveness of federal taxes. Corporate taxes tend to be REGRESSIVE because under different circumstances between 70% and 75% eventually fall on labor or the consumer to pay. Corporate taxes are no more than an easy to collect revenue using the corporation as the collecting agency and the taxes ultimately fall on those who can least afford to pay them.

I too left a high tax state for one which does not charge income tax on retirement income. I also chose a state which had a reasonable attitude about keeping and bearing arms, and one which has liberal hunting and fishing policies.

 

They won't leave, they will just spend a lot of money on accountants and schemes to pay taxes at a less confiscatory rate. The bad part about this, is that most of those schemes don't add as much to the GDP as would less restricted usage of the money. The only people that really pay a lot of taxes are the slightly wealthy and upper middle class. The truly rich hide their money using loopholes that they created in conjunction with Congress. The poor are getting tax rebates.

That said, some rich do leave. One of the co-founders of Facebook, for example, went to Singapore.

 

Greatly increased tax rates usually don't mean greatly increased tax revenue. Most tax increases end up raising much less revenue than expected. We use tax increases to decrease behaviors that we don't like (smoking being the best example). Why would anybody assume that tax rate increases on income aren't going to change income earning behaviors?

 

Too bad we can't make these creeps have their citizenship revoked and their passports permanently withheld.

 

Please show me three such studies.

- - - Updated - - -

They had enough tax loopholes that nobody was paying 91% tax rates.

 

That was the marginal rate, applicable on only a small part of their earnings.

 

The notion that the rich will 'flee' as a result of tax increases is unfounded and is, indeed, a scare tactic aimed at undermining government revenue while simultaneously placing pressure on Congress and the President to make spending cuts in the face of increasing debt. US income tax rates are rather low compared to many European countries where the standard-of-living is actually higher than the US and where plenty of incredibly rich people happily live (here's an excel document from the OECD comparing income taxes for several different family types across OECD members: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932588784). Regardless, most of the richest Americans still have an array of ways to avoid taxes (especially since the wealthy are far more likely to derive income from interest, stocks, capital investments, treasury securities and other nice ways to allow large piles of money to just 'grow' and the US has not yet managed to fully shut down access to offshore accounts). If you're making more than a million a year and you are complaining that an increase in your total tax burden of a couple percentage points then you lack any meaningful connection to the average American and are showing a complete lack of any sense of social responsibility or empathy.

The US provides far less in the way of a social safety net for the majority of its citizens compared to most advanced democracies so it isn't surprising that taxes are not notably high for the wealthiest Americans. So many on the right in this country complain about 'big government', the debt and high taxes yet we have an extremely small, inefficient and weak social safety net compared to most developed countries, lower taxes than the most advanced democracies and a relatively small government (in relation to our population size). It is amazing how much of an outlier the US is among the worlds wealthy democracies; whereas voters in most such states support higher taxes, extensive and universal welfare/social/educational/healthcare/etc programs and, as a result, have much lower poverty rates, lower income inequality, greater equality of opportunity, lower crime rates, better test scores, higher rates of research & innovation, better standards-of-living and numerous other benefits - US citizens are far more inclined to be swayed to vote for candidates calling for lower taxes, increased spending cuts and, as a result, we've an enormous level of income inequality, significant inequality of opportunity, extremely high crime rates, dismal educational performance at the primary and secondary levels, less research and development, higher poverty rates, homelessness...

The fact that the US never developed a true labor or social democratic party (for many reasons, including the two-party system, the fact that the US was experiencing great economic prosperity when these types of parties were on the rise in Europe, federalism...) is partly at fault; the particular US experience in the Cold War (and the confused demonization of 'socialism,' which is an anachronistic term with little meaning today that resulted but which is thrown at any attempt to raise revenue and increase spending to delegitimize it). The funny thing is, if you ask the average American if they would support a 'socialist' program and most will immediately say no. But then if you ask if they support social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc they will say yes without seeing the blatant contradiction. Americans have been, in the aggregate, conditioned to respond negatively to anything deemed as being 'big government' despite actually supporting, by huge majorities, the largest welfare programs provided by the federal government.

 

Socialism is not social programs. That is where you made your mistake about asking the average citizen. The only system more evil than socialism is communism. Neither can exist for long without a strong autocratic government or dictatorship and neither produces the wide spread prosperity as does capitalism. Your suggesting social security is a welfare program is preposterous as it is paid for by the individual. Premium structures need to be addressed to maintain solvency but it is not welfare, nor is medicare welfare as it too is client paid.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun

A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

As to your comment about European wealth, of course there are wealthy people there, but on average we in the US enjoy a more prosperous and free life than do Europeans. I lived in Europe for 15 years of my working life.

There are other factors you don't mention. European countries are small and the people are better arranged to use public transportation.

European education programs are superior to ours and their very concept of education is superior to ours. If a school district in the US tried to run their schools as they do in Europe law suits would close them down. European schools have a two tier system; one directed at University and the other (more students) are directed at a trade.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shoul...ship-144048875.html?desktop_view_default=true Renouncing one's US citizenship.