Posted on 10/31/2008 11:02:14 AM PDT by KFAT
Why do all these billionaires (Buffett, Paulson, Soros) support Obama? Or CheBama versus the ChicagoBoyz
They know their corporations will get tax-payer funded contracts no matter what. People on that level don’t operate like the rest of us. They talk up socialism to get the vote, and then they act like capitalists when vending the goods to their government chronies.
Buffet is a buffoon—our era’s Ebeneezer Scrooge if ever there was one.
This article [h/t Instapundit]
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
shows that the U.S. has a more progressive tax code than the democratic-socialist states of Europe.
Such a state of affairs should not come as a surprise. Our own history shows that the very wealthy benefit from leftist policies of high tax rates, “targeted” taxation and industrial policy.
The ugly truth is that the really wealthy can manipulate the political system to their own ends better than ordinary people. They can lobby for specific tax breaks that only they can take advantage of. They can get government trade protection for their companies. They can get bailouts. If all else fails, the truly wealthy can simply relocate their wealth into whatever area the government policies du jour make the most profitable.
In the extremes, they can simple sit on their wealth and wait for the political winds to change.
The history of Europe since WWII has shown that it really pays to be a big company in a socialist country. Socialists like stasis. Socialist politicians like to guarantee jobs. They like predictable tax revenue. To this end they select a handful of major companies and in return for heavy regulation, protect them internal and external competition. The largest companies in Europe are much larger compared to the size of their national economies than are the largest companies in America. The largest companies in Europe also keep their top positions while a great deal of turnover by comparison occurs in American companies.
October 29, 2008
News To Obama: The OECD Says The United States Has The Most Progressive Tax System
by Scott A. Hodge
Barack Obama’s admission that his policies would “spread the wealth around” has ignited a nationwide discussion of how progressive the tax system should be and how it should be used to redistribute income among Americans. Obama has been very successful in bolstering the conventional wisdom that the U.S. tax system does not place a significant enough burden on wealthier households and places too much of a burden on the “middle class.”
But a new study on inequality by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reveals that when it comes to household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions) the U.S. “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population.” As Column 1 in the table below shows, the U.S. tax system is far more progressive—meaning pro-poor—than similar systems in countries most Americans identify with high taxes, such as France and Sweden.
Even after accounting for the fact that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. have one of the highest shares of market income among OECD nations, our tax system is second only to Ireland in terms of its progressivity for households.
The table also shows that the U.S. collects more household tax revenue from the top 10 percent of households than any other country and extracts the most from that income group relative to their share of the nation’s income.
Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.
The study also shows that while most countries rely more on cash transfers than taxes to redistribute income, the U.S. stands out as “achieving greater redistribution through the tax system than through cash transfers.”[1]
Overall, the study finds that income transfer systems (social insurance, welfare) are “significantly more efficient than tax systems at reducing inequality, as well as more effective...”
Obama has started an important debate for America, but it is too bad he did so with less than one week before the presidential election.
More here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
Buffet is a fraud and liar. He believes ‘THE RICH” should pay more in taxes and yet he is the richest of the rich and yet never, ever wrote a check to Uncle Sam, for the difference between what he’s currently getting taxed and what he claims would be “fair.”
>Because then they don’t have to compete honestly out in a competitive free market. They just have their thugs in the government fix things. Plus it keeps those below them on the wealth ladder from from getting close.
Amazingly cynical viewpoint... though it does have the ring of truth. :/
A big reason are cultural reasons. The wealthy generally have much more control over when they are taxed and in what form. If you work for a living then you are facing income taxes which represents a huge cost of living for you. The wealthy tend not to face such high effective tax rates.
Taxes become less of a concern once you hit a certain level. I mean, they will always be a concern, just not as big of a one as for the mere $250k “wealthy” piker.
Because
1. They have an axe to grind
2. As part of the elite, they feel that under socialism, they would be the in charge or rubbing elbows with those that are
3. They are wed or socialize with liberal men/women of like ilk
4. They have too much time on their hands and are constantly looking for causes which fill their lives
5. They’ve already made their wealth and can afford lawyers/Accountants that help them dodge their obligations
IMHO
The super rich do quite well under socialism. They become the royalty and the rest of us are stuck perpetually at the bottom. Feeds their egos.
Offshore, darling, offshore....
Avoid taxes like the Kennedys do.
Because we tax income, not wealth. The wealthy can hide their income from the taxman. Workers, entrepreneurs, and small businesspeople can’t.
Good article — thanks for posting.
It is rather perverse: the more regulated the industry, the fewer the participants (and the richer the profits).
The higher the nominal taxes, the more rigid the “caste” structure in terms of wealth. What happens if/when Obama gets to “spread the wealth around”, you’ll see the “cutting off the top” of upward mobility... the holding down of upward aspirations.
A conservative sees someone in need and says: “How can I help?”
A liberal sees someone in need and says: “There needs to be a government program to help.”
Because their wealth is “off shore”.
For the mega-rich, socialism protects their position at the top, because socialism crushes the competition via oppressive taxation and regulation.
It will greatly increase the stratification in society and attempt to make it permanent. The only way to advance will be under the guiding arm of the State. If you try to do it without government help you will be smacked down in a hurry.
In the Mexican model, a tiny handful of enormously wealthy oligarchs align themselves with the political power structure. Having fortified their entrenched wealth, they kick away the ladder so others can't build wealth (erecting barriers such as taxes, levies, fines, and fees to limit incomes).
Once the middle class has been destroyed or reduced to politically insignificant, there are effectively 2 classes. The wealthy develop an almost god-like stature among the proletariat class. The poor (over 80+% of the country) become like slaves, they beg for scraps from the rich who control the government. The government manipulates the masses with freebies such as incompetent nationalized healthcare or subsidized energy. (ironically, the freebies don't come from the rich, they come from the skimmed profits drawn from the labor of the poor they claim to help). And they influence the poor with state run broadcasting or an oligarchy run media.
Obviously not all the wealthy are this way. But these types that support Obama and the Dems in this time of peril have gotten bored with their riches and see this as an opportunity to satisfy their lust for power, control, and a narcissistic desire for adulation.
Because Communism is secretly run by David Rockefeller?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.