Can someone explain this to me? (taxing the rich)

So this group of RICH germans wants the government to tax them more
http://www.thelocal.de/money/20091022-22755.html

quotes like "a lot of money I do not need."

I dont understand. Cant the rich guys who WANT to give the government more money just give it to them and then all the rich ones who dont, dont?

Is there some sort of law preventing people from giving the government money willingly and not wanting it back?


Seriously I have no clue.. is there some sort of law preventing people from just giving money to the government(s) to help them balance budgets?

A well-known example of bureaucratic largesse was when Ted Turner gave a ton o' cash to the U.N.

Why doesn't someone from the forum phone the government 800 - 622-6232 number and ask them to whom they can mail a cheque to help with the deficit?
try 311 for the city- to make a donation
and Province 945 3744 out of town 1 866 626 4862

Miz point wrote:A well-known example of bureaucratic largesse was when Ted Turner gave a ton o' cash to the U.N.

Ted Turner is a fucuken commie bastard. Bureaucratic largesse indeed.

The man is an idiot...yesterday's news at best..don't forget that he married a dumb broad that is still known as Hanoi Jane btw.

JTF, I was only addressing the original query regarding private funds to bail out the public sector re: governmental bodies. I am not playing partisan politics here so why are you? If Turner is so "yesterday's news at best" then why did you feel the need to discuss a marriage that no longer exists and refer to the ex-spouse as a "dumb broad"? That "dumb broad" has a helluva lot more cash in her bank accounts than I bet you do.....and you being a capitalist sort, right? - the size of one's bank account is pretty important indeed.

I guess old Ted has done pretty good for a "fucuken" commie bastard?

Sour grapes....makes for some good whines......and on that note, let the games begin. I cannot wait to see what kind of nasty remarks will be pointed my way now.

The UN is one fine den of vipers.

I know....do not have much respect for the UN being that I have seen their mismanagement at close range.

It may not come as a huge surprise, but it seems like a perfectly logical idea to me. You've got a very small percentage of the population controlling a very large percentage of the wealth. Seems like a good idea to institute a small, short term rate increase that equals a huge influx of cash to fix the budget shortfalls now. Short term minor pain on the part of few, for long term gain for all.

In the example given, it would equate to an extra $25K/anually for someone earning $500K. At that level they're still likely taking home around 250K, so wether it's 250K or $225k left over after taxes it's not exactly a huge lifestyle changer IMHO. On the other hand you could increase taxes for the middle class by 20%, reducing someones income by $5-10K annually (a huge lifestyle hit) and still not raise as much new revenue as a small increase for the largest earners.

Feel free to flame away and BTW I don't think this would ever be feasable in Germany or any other country. Way too much greed in the world.

From my experience, my Dad made a 6 figure salary. He was taxed to death. Not only did he give approx 50 cents from every dollar he made he also had a huge tax bill at the end of the year. Didn't seem fair.

Add to that tax structure the additional taxes paid at the cash register that could not necessarily be clawed back.

grumpyrom wrote:It may not come as a huge surprise, but it seems like a perfectly logical idea to me. You've got a very small percentage of the population controlling a very large percentage of the wealth. Seems like a good idea to institute a small, short term rate increase that equals a huge influx of cash to fix the budget shortfalls now. Short term minor pain on the part of few, for long term gain for all.

In the example given, it would equate to an extra $25K/anually for someone earning $500K. At that level they're still likely taking home around 250K, so wether it's 250K or $225k left over after taxes it's not exactly a huge lifestyle changer IMHO. On the other hand you could increase taxes for the middle class by 20%, reducing someones income by $5-10K annually (a huge lifestyle hit) and still not raise as much new revenue as a small increase for the largest earners.

Feel free to flame away and BTW I don't think this would ever be feasable in Germany or any other country. Way too much greed in the world.

But thats not the question at all.

The question is... if these guys want to, why cant they just give their wealth to the government? Why do they need a tax?

Of course they don't need a tax to give away their money, so there's another agenda at play here I suspect. What that is I don't know, but I do know that a fool and his money are soon parted, and also, I suspect that these fools didn't work hard for their money...which explains it enough for me.

Of course there's a hidden agenda. They'll get everyone else to pay the added taxes while finding legal loopholes to avoid them. Remember Paul Martin and his foreign-owned fleet?

I'm not sure of what you mean...they do give after-tax dollars to the government don't they?

Very little, since his vessels are registered outside Canada and operated by crews hired outside Canada.

oh please... someone who was our Prime Minister would never allow that.

incognito wrote:Very little, since his vessels are registered outside Canada and operated by crews hired outside Canada.

Well, if a person went to all this trouble to avoid taxes why would he give it to the government on his own?

he wouldn't.... that's the point.

...then the reason these people want to give away their money is......??

...they're not thinking straight?

JTF wrote:...then the reason these people want to give away their money is......??

Tax write-off...plain and simple.

Tax laws prevent people from giving more than a certain percentage of their money to charity as a write-off.

And...until last year...here in Canada (I'll see if I can find that article), you COULD give all your money to the government as a "donation", which they were REQUIRED to give back to you, with interest, tax free.

Apparently a few companies were doing it, and would give several million dollars to the government, and making back hundreds of thousands in interest on their "investment". So last year the government finally said "no" and shut the loophole down.

There is a ceiling on gifts, so that can't be the reason.

The 'over-payment' thingy was a loophole that got closed.

JTF wrote:There is a ceiling on gifts, so that can't be the reason.

The 'over-payment' thingy was a loophole that got closed.

There's no ceiling on "gifts to the government" (another loophole)

And...I thought I said the loophole for overpayment got closed? but thanks for confirming it .

Incidentally...in the US...did you know that originally, Income Tax was VOLUNTARY?

And, technically (if you read the laws) it STILL IS!!!

What a concept.

"Hey...if you think the government is doing a good job...give us some money...otherwise...no problem...we'll make do."

There's no ceiling on "gifts to the government" (another loophole)

Heh...imagine the guilt that someone must have to give their money to the government?

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/progressive-economics/07/13/the-myth-versus-the-reality-of-adam-smiths-political-economy/

The Wealth of Nations serves as an of his time reaction to the
impact of corporations and mercantile interests on economies and
governments. More specifically, Smith spent much of his book reacting
to the growth of the East India Company, whose stockholders were to be
found on every level of government decision making in Great Britain and
thought to be adversely effecting foreign policy and internal financial
systems. Smith was also appalled at the exploitation under the reign of
the East India Company, including the starvation of over 30 million
people in modern-day Bangladesh due to British-imposed tariffs.