[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

I'm not sure I really believe it. According to posters on this forum, that means the rich should be fleeing to other countries, taking their money with them. Bart told me that Canadian rich all live in the US - why would they if they have to pay higher taxes? Warren Buffet said he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Those differences might have something to do with the definition of "wealthy" being used. The stats I quoted are calling the top 10% of incomes as "wealthy." Warren Buffet might have enough money in tax-deferred investments that he's not actually paying taxes on that money until he takes it out of those investments, thus giving him much lower taxable income now. Or there could be some other explanation.

andyt wrote:

In Britain the maximum tax rate is 50% - what is it in the US?

35%. But that doesn't account for differences in tax exemptions and what constitutes income. Proportion of income actually paid as taxes is a better measure of what tax jurisdiction a tax-avoiding individual would seek.

In Britain, the top 10% of incomes take in 32.3% of the nation's income and pay 38.6% of it's taxes. The top 10% in the United States take in 33.5% and pay 45.1%. Britain's government is probably more expensive per person generally, giving the wealthy a smaller proportion of that heavier burden. If so, the USA would have the lower tax burden on individual wealthy taxpayers while simultaneously having a greater proportion of the tax burden on the wealthy as a class.

Maybe I'll verify that claim about Britian's size of government per capita in the morning. Out of time now.

[Bruce_the_vii]

These statistics about how well the top does always amaze. Working from memory the top 20% in Canada make 45% of the total income. (This is from the newspaper, which would never clarify "income" for it's readers")

[andyt]

What amazes me is how people's hearts bleed for the abused wealthy. The poor darlings really have it rough, and if us envious lazy parasites would just quit sucking their blood, they could finally enjoy their life. PT Barnum would be proud.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Roger that.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

What amazes me is how people's hearts bleed for the abused wealthy. The poor darlings really have it rough, and if us envious lazy parasites would just quit sucking their blood, they could finally enjoy their life. PT Barnum would be proud.

What bothers me is your advocacy that they lose their equality of rights because they have wealth. If someone did that because they had a disease or a particular ethnic heritage, you and I would condemn it together. But since it's the group with whom you don't empathize, their equality under the law can be sacrificed without weighing on your conscience. That, however, doesn't make it right.

The point isn't to define the wealthy as an abused minority, but to treat them the same as everyone else.

[Psudo]

Oh, I almost forgot...

UK's proposed 2012 budget is £701.8 billion. That's 43% of their GDP and about £11,300 per person.

The USA's proposed 2012 budget is $3.7 trillion. That's 26% of our GDP and about $10,600 per person.

According to Google, $10,600 is about £6,600. Or, if you prefer to convert the other way, £11,300 is about $18,000.
$18,000 / $10,600 = 1.69
£11,300 / £ 6,600 = 1.71
43% / 26% = 1.65

Any way you look at it, Brits pay about 2/3rds more taxes than Americans. There's a money-conscious motive for folks to move to the USA from GB even when their proportion of the tax burden is higher, since it's a greater proportion of a much smaller burden.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

The point isn't to define the wealthy as an abused minority, but to treat them the same as everyone else.

Don't you know that "the rich are different from you and me?" I'm happy to treat them the same if they also get not extra influence in government. If we tax at levels allow educating kids of all income groups equally, including university, and all enrichment programs. If we make sure that all kids have access to good quality nutrition and housing. etc. What you're basically talking about is that "A rich man has just as much right to sleep under a bridge as a poor man." If you want to do anything about that situation at all, you're on the road to income re-distribution and it just becomes a matter of arguing now much. If not, then good luck with the society you build with a philosophy like that.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Psudo wrote:

The point isn't to define the wealthy as an abused minority, but to treat them the same as everyone else.

Lol.This is a democracy. The government is going to raid those that have the money.

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

I'm happy to treat them the same if they also get not extra influence in government.

Individual donations are capped. There are massive books of rules limiting lobbying. Everyone still only gets one vote per person. What other influence limitations do you prescribe?

andyt wrote:

If we tax at levels allow educating kids of all income groups equally, including university, and all enrichment programs. If we make sure that all kids have access to good quality nutrition and housing. etc.

Programs pursuing these goals already exist, except maybe enrichment programs because I don't know what that means. They already are, and after any plausible reform would remain, funded in greater proportion by the rich than in any other nation on Earth.

So what else do you need before you will consider the rich equally human?

[andyt]

You can't really try to tell me that money doesn't buy influence in the American govt? Or that some inner city school has the same quality of education as in Loudon county VA? Or that kids with working poor parents have the same quality of nutrition, safe housing, parental attention, etc etc that kids with wealthy parents do.

If you don't know what an enrichment program is, google it. Hint, music would be one.

You can say you have these programs, and funded more by the rich than other countries (I seriously doubt that). But look at other countries, how they manage to do it so much better than you do. Even we in Canada do much better, tho we could of course still improve it.

[Psudo]

Oh, cultural enrichment. Then yes, we have programs for that, too.

But the programs failures are not the rich's fault. I still don't see why you want to stick it to 'em when it's the government botching the program implementation. Or are you imagining that enough money fixes all problems? Britain has no poverty, right?