Raise taxes on the rich? They didn’t GET to be rich by being stupid


obamamakethempayWith all the clamoring to soak the rich to avoid forcing the fortunate poor* going to work and getting less for free, Great Britain played the “fair share” game and went after more of the income of the evil rich. The rich, not being stupid, simply said “Tax THIS!” and took measures to keep what they earned:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Note: what Obama leftists want to do has been tried. It failed. But of course, they’re smarter leftists in America.

*Fortunate to be in America. Where else on Earth but America do the “poor” have big screen TVs, new cars, video games, cell phones. etc?

Imagine a faraway land that was so prosperous that almost every inhabitant had their own personal Rolls Royce parked inside the garage of a 5,000 square foot house, and had personal chefs that whipped up whatever food they wanted.

Now, imagine about 15 percent of the population of that fictional country only had a 2,000 square foot house, a low-end BMW or Mercedes, and had to go to restaurants to get what they wanted to eat. Would it seem silly to call this group “poor”?

It would seem so to people from less prosperous countries who struggle to find food and warmth on a daily basis, as well as people in the rich country who had the presence of mind not to be fooled by the laughable idea of relative poverty.

Relative poverty is not quite the same as actual poverty, as the story about the faraway land illustrates.  No matter how rich a person is, he can always be considered relatively poor when compared to someone wealthier.

Just as the person with more is considered “rich” by the person with less, there’s going to be a leftist Democrat somewhere willing to pit the one against the other in exchange for votes and more power for himself/herself.

Crossposted from A Tow Dog

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Erick Brockway
Work seven days a week at two jobs, a newly RETIRED EO1 (E6) in the Navy Reserves (Seabees), blog when I can from cellphone and computer. @erickbrockway #catcot #tcot

Currently living in Camarillo, CA, about 45 miles North of LA. I have a wife (20+ years) son, and two daughters.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Eastbay
December 5, 2012 11:50 pm

Quite right Erick.
The thing I am most thankful for about my year long ‘vacation’ in Viet Nam in 1967 was my chance to see what real poverty looks like. At that time the average income was about 75 cent per MONTH, and a family of 6 or more might be grateful to have a 500 square foot ‘house built from thin poles and sheet metal squares of ‘mis-printed’ Pabst Blue Ribbon can stock.
I could go on, but nobody who has not seen it would believe. BTW: They had no fat ‘poor’ people.

December 6, 2012 8:39 pm

I’m mighty thankful for what I have that’s for sure. Worst poverty I’ve ever seen was in China.

E Pluribus Unum
December 7, 2012 10:59 pm

Ah, you skeptic you! Dontcha remember what the HCSIC said: “The big difference….you’ve got ME.”

December 5, 2012 4:34 pm

Teach your children well; their father’s hell will slowly go by.