-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
That’s a Lot of Caca in Caracas
May 16, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Earlier this week, The New York Times ran an approving piece written by Julia Werdigier about prominent wealthy Europeans who have echoed Warren Buffett’s call to raise taxes on higher income earners.
The article notes that while these calls for higher taxation have been heard in France, Germany and Italy, the same cannot be said for Britain. Indeed, Werdigier quotes the headline from an article written in The Guardian by Polly Toynbee titled, “Where is Britain’s Warren Buffett or Liliane Bettencourt?”
Frankly, I am surprised that Toynbee would pose such a question. Surely she remembers when Britain had marginal tax rates of up to 98% during the 1960s and 1970s under both Labour and Tory governments until Margaret Thatcher had the good sense to reduce them.
Think of all the British musicians who left the U.K. and became tax exiles - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart. Even Donovan was affected as he recounted in his autobiography a few years back. Mr. Leitch wrote, “The British revenue were taxing all of us stars 98 percent. That’s Ninety-Eight pence to them, two to us. George Harrison wrote his song “Taxman” for the best of reasons. How much can one man possibly need?”
Yes, how much can President Obama possibly need? Should fifty percent appear to be small, be thankful I don’t take it all, indeed. If Warren Buffett were to turn over his entire fortune to President Obama, it wouldn’t be enough to satiate his appetite for spending.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/01/why-theres-no-buffett-in-brita
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
1ConservativeUSA| 9.1.11 @ 10:20AM
If Warren Buffet truly believes that the solution is giving more of his private property to the government, and acted upon it, he never would have had the opportunity to become Warren Buffet.
Because Buffet does not act upon his words, moreover, because his arguments are false, we can conclude he is merely playing politics.
JohnD| 9.1.11 @ 11:02AM
Buffet owes a billion in unpaid taxes already to the IRS and he is employing a team of high prices lawyers to fight the IRS over the money. Its riught here at Human Events
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889
Occam's Tool| 9.1.11 @ 1:24PM
Apparently there are no all you can eat buffets in Britain, either, because they are much more uncouth than Americans.
JP| 9.1.11 @ 1:42PM
If Warren Buffet cashed out all of his assets and turned them over to the Dept of Treasury, it would cover the borrowing of the US for exactly 18 days. That should illustrate how much the US borrows each and every day (around $4 billion).
Stan| 9.1.11 @ 2:33PM
I always enjoy the surveys that ask what percentage the rich should be responsible for, what is the "fair share" and it's always far below what the currently pay (top 15% pay 85% of taxes).
Teflon93| 9.1.11 @ 2:36PM
Yes, but all those people who wanted to enjoy the benefits of their talent and labor were merely "unpatriotic".
As Thomas Sowell has noted, "Earning money no longer entitles you to it---merely wanting money does."
Hugh Greentree| 9.1.11 @ 9:53PM
The problem is not that the top tax rate is too low. The problem is the way we determine how people are taxed. For instance, using “taxable income” as the measure for taxation misses the point that many of the wealthy do not need income to support themselves; they just need cash flow.
Consider the following facts provided by the IRS and the White House budget documents:
Annual federal budget deficits since 2009 have run between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion.
About 235,000 returns reporting income in excess of $1 million
The total combined taxable income reported by taxpayers earning over $1 million per year was $446 billion. Based on the 2009 numbers, imposing a tax rate of 100% on all income in excess of $1 million per year that would raise additional revenue of $211 billion. Imposing a tax rate of 100% on all income in excess of $75,000 per year would raise an additional $726 billion. Imposing a tax rate of 100% on all income in excess of $50,000 per year would raise an additional $1.2 trillion. In order to balance the 2011 deficit, we would need to impose a tax rate of 100% on all income in excess of $40,000 per year.
Higher taxes might be able to close a budget deficit comparable the 2007 deficit. But closing deficits on the order of the last few years is not possible using our current system employing higher tax rates. We need to make fundamental changes.
Jim | 9.3.11 @ 9:41AM
Mr. Goldstein left out the most interesting example of musicians leaving; Bono and U2, a favorite Progressive darling for their concerts on Live Aid, and their public activisim for western government involvement in developing third world nations.
Bono and U2 moved out of Britain's tax clutches even as they call for more government spending. You can not make this stuff up.
Bono claims one is a 'business decision' while the other is humanitarian. Which of course means he understands nothing at all.
Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 3:00PM
Bono is a bloody fool.
ys| 10.25.11 @ 10:07PM
Slewing ring : a novel rotary products, also commonly called a slewing bearing slewing bearing, usually by a worm, shell, motor and other components. http://www.1stbearing.com