(V): I'll make this simple. When I talk about a "millionaires tax" I'm referring to your top earners ... ((( EARNERS )))

The key word here is 'earners'.

Not havers or holders... ' earners '

Not all of your top money owners are top money earners. Money you own that has already been taxed is not again taxed year after year... unless you've put it all into real estate, then you do need to pay a regular property tax for as long as you own your home(s) or other properties.


But just for the fun of it, imagine you had 8 million dollars just sitting in the bank year after year, and it's earning you a secure 2% interest which you've decided is enough for you to live on. I don't know about you, but I would be VERY happy with that kind of arraignement. Anyway, technically speaking you COULD be called a millionaire, and thus be included in that 200,000 to 400,000 list of millionaires living in the UK. However, you would NOT fall into the same catagory and listed as someone earning 2 or 3 million dollars or more per year. It's those EARNED dollars (for each year) that would be subject to taxation, and NOT the 8 million dollar (dollars, pounds, whatever) nest egg sitting securely in your bank... only the interest on that 8 million would be subject to taxation. Assuming of course you've already payed taxes on a larger sum of money, thus leaving you with 8 million for you to set down into a bank and never spend.

It's only a 'what if' scenario (darn it!) but you could call me a millonaire if I had 8 mil sitting in the bank year after year... even so, I could not afford to live the sterotypical life of a one or two percenter "millionaire" without eventually depleting most or all of that money.

Iamon lyme: So in other words.. taxable income.

I covered that in my last post to you.

I know the difference having worked in several accounting posts, studied economics at school, business studies.

"No, but I could agree that...."

The Daily Mail is unreliable..

"seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?"

Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy.

(V): "Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy."

Oh good grief, it was a trick question. "How many people can you find on a list of 6,000 people?"


As far as the numbers go, between France and the UK, I might have goofed and transposed what I read about France with what I was reading about the UK. It happens... I'm gettin' old and somewhat confused, but not so confused that anyone can convince me passing tax laws that work as disincentives won't cause migrations from one country (or state) to another.

Without even looking I can guess that Europe has similar migration patterns as in the US, with businesses moving their headquarters from one state to another. If a business has no economic reason to move they won't do it. It costs big bucks to do that, so it would take a significant disincentive for causing any big (or even medium size) company to pull up roots and settle in somewhere else.

It's been happening in California, and it's happening here in Oregon. Companys that started here and have been here for many years either went out of business or relocated to other (work friendly) states.

A few years ago a couple of tax measures were passed locally, on top of an already untenable tax burdon, and word on the street here was those two relatively small tax measures would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. Almost immediately after those measures had passed commerce departments in other states began calling and courting some of those businesses. Apparently they knew something our mayor and other city officials didn't know or understand (not to mention the general population, because they voted those messures in). So after the dust starts to settle and businesses started moving out of state, or simply giving up and closing their doors, the mayor called a special meeting of business leaders and asked them what the city of Portland could do to help them... ???

He thought they were bluffing when those same business leaders had told him (before the vote) that they could not stay in business if hit with extra taxes. Apparently they weren't bluffing... they were telling him the way it is.

I am literally mystified by this... why can't politicians get this one simple idea into their heads... the money they want for themselves will not be there if the economy is tied up in needless regulations and bled by too big a tax burdon.

Iamon lyme: It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area.

"and bled by too big a tax burden."

Profits seem ok for many big companies... 'bled' is an exaggeration.

"needless regulations"

What regulations would you call needless? An example.

(V): "It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area."


Are suggesting local tax payers end up covering most or all of the cost of a business moving into their area? That does seem to be what you are suggesting. If an area can benefit from a business relocating to their area, then they might be offered incentives to do so. But when you say "often the case", are you expecting me to interpreted that as meaning "most of the time" or "always"?

I'm sure you can come up with examples of local governing bodies providing tailored made perks and special tax incentives, but that is to be expected. What I said was businesses were being "courted"... not offered a completely free ride with all expenses paid.

No one when courting a business will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts... the fact is they don't need to pay for anything. Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations. And come on, seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?


There are rules that cannot be ignored because they are a part of state or federal law, but everyone knows local governments can pass measures and enact rules that only affect their area. In the case of the area I live in, it has been the extra rules regulations fees and taxes that have been driving businesses away... but the lions share of what businesses are required to do and pay for are completely unnecessary, and only exist to keep money coming into (local) governement coffers, and to insure people can continue to be employed in their government (tax funded) jobs.

It's necessary for local governments to have that ability, to enact rules and charge fees if needed, because the US is not a one size fits all economy. But surprise surprise, even a small local governing entity can become greedy, and always looking for new ways to bring in more money to spend... whether it's needed or not. So anyway, yeah... you are correct, greed does a play a big part in all of this. If you are hungry and can't wait for the goose to lay a golden egg, then cook the goose and eat it... and then you can wait until tomorrow to worry over where your next meal will come from.

Iamon lyme: yes, they are..

"will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts..."

Not all, but enough to make it a point.

"Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations."

It's usually a mix. It's those on the low end who usually suffer as a result. Eg Texas has cut it's education budget.

"seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?"

No I don't. it's a relative term. I accept the need for regulation when it has been proven by cases of businesses cutting corners that are for the most part common sense.

eg ... a 454g pack of sugar must contain at least 454g, maintain good kitchen hygiene.