Printable View
Uhm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes they would? Switzerland has a good financial industry, why isn't that a good location for the headquarters of any large company?
And Mongolia has quite a few ships registered to them, ya know.... ~;)
You said his income was 30 million a year. Therefore if he pays 10 million it is 33% percent repeating in taxes. His 8 billion fortune is NOT his income. :inquisitive:
Try reading it again ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I said that if 10 million was 28% of his income, then he couldn't have made more than 30 million in 2007, and we all know he made a lot more than that. His real income is likely a few hundred million, not 30 million.
What kind of clever investments did he make to arrive at 8 billion with 30 million a year? If he just had that income, it would have taken him 266 years to amass 8 billion, and that's without spending a cent or even paying the taxes. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I think HoreTore's point was that he must actually earn more than those 30 million with the 30 million being only the tax-deductible part his accountants left over or something like that.
But if 8 billion is your fortune, why exactly do you care about taxes again? It's not like he will have to switch to bread and water. From what he earns in a month I could live a pretty comfortable life...
Doesn't necessarily mean he would have to pay more taxes but why would he need tax cuts?
It was misunderstood, my apologies. I find it hard to believe that in a socialist country he did not pay higher taxes than that. Norway must either have a plateau taxing system (and the max is ten million), which i doubt or there is some shady accounting going on (but that is a little too shady...), or the information on the website is wrong (not that i am doubting your sources just brainstorming.) Because like it or not socialist countries are usually going to have pretty high taxes for the social spending, i mean that is unavoidable.
If you have made shed loads of money in a country, then the infrastructure that the citizens have paid for has been very effective. You then owe it to those citizens to pony up and pay your share. If I make $50,000 I assume I will have to pay $10-15,000 in taxes. If I make many millions, then my share of the bill should be much higher. What would I be being deprived of? One more ivory back-scratcher?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
1. The "source" is definitely not wrong. The source is the official tax lists from the Norwegian government(Norway being the only country I know where such info is public), and they are accurate. Very accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
2. There is no maximum amount for taxes, this guy, for example, paid 150 million in taxes.
3. Rich people don't pay taxes, that's a well-known fact. The situation is the same in every country. Money is hidden away in shady countries, companies and hidden bank accounts, income is redefined as something else, every deduction is used to the max, etc etc. See his income for 2006, for example, it's "0". You think he was unemployed that year?
The ones paying the taxes keeping the country going are the regular people, meaning people from the working class to those making a couple of millions a year. Those making more than that hire an army of accountants to make their money disappear. But of course there are exceptions to that.
I don't mind a progressive income taxation system, but this kind of attitude really annoys me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I think Norway should just kill him and confiscate his wealth. He's clearly not paying his fair share.
I believe that it is probably something exploitave like cayman island accounts or such.
However, many top executives make "0" dollars a year. the ceo of aig in America, a humongous bank chain made more than 5 million easily. however, he soon took an income of 0 from the company after it lost business. Rich people can live off their investments easily....... There are plenty of rich people who own companies but do not take a salary from said company.
Really? What annoys me is multi-millionaires who pay less tax than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
If you "live off your investments", you'll have to take out profits or interest or whatever to get any cash. And that gets classified as income, because, as you say, no rich guy has a salary. Or "capital gains tax" or whatever it's called in that weird language you barbarians call English....Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
and no, my english isn't good when it comes to various terms like these... so I honestly can't debate that particular area any further, as I unfortunately don't know what the various things are called :shame:
Capital gains tax is for profits made off business. And no living off investments, stocks, bonds, etc. is not neccassarily construed as income, sometimes, but not always.
Oh and i have found your english to be fine
Nice to know, although this really doesn't justify your statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Oh are you a billionaire? :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Really? What annoys me is multi-millionaires who pay less tax than me.
Ah well. It's the same everywhere in the West. The poor receive money. The rich receive or forge themselves endless benefits. And the middle clas is squeezed out to the last penny.
Norwegians invest an enormous amount of their earnings into public goods like roads, infrastructure, eduction, health, law and order. Into all those prerequisites for running a succesful billion kroner retail industry. If the guy thinks himself above paying his fair share, then nationalise his industry and sell it to those who will contribute their share to society.
'Nuff of this pandering to the whims of billionaires and multinationals. Countries serve the people, and businesses serve the people. Not the other way round.
Now don't be silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
My paranoid mind is beginning to think that it's no coincidence that this happens a few months before the election.... He has donated millions to the opposition these last years... If it is a political statement, it kinda blew up in his face though, as every other rich guy I've seen interviewed has called him an idiot, and then there's this thing about that shipping tycoon moving back...Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Silly? But 'tis true, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
We accepted immigration in the 70's, when the pakistani's came to bump our working force. In the 80's, we closed our borders. The only people we accept now, are those we are bound to accept by international treaties, ie. a certain amount of refugees and asylum seekers.
Oh, and spouses.
I'm not able to respond to that unfortunately, I don't know the exact technical terms in english... In norwegian, we have a term called "aksjeutbytte" which is the term for the money you gain from "living off investments, stocks, bonds, etc".... I thought that translated as "capital gains tax".... In any event, it's still an income, and should still be taxed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I think my statement is fair enough. There is rampant poverty, disease and hardship in the world, and some billionaire gets angry because a state which has helped him earn $30 million in a year wants to claim $5 million to help pay for infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I thought you said that they payed less than you. Wow you must make alot of money if they pay 5 million. (sorry couldn't resist)
Nah, it's the opposite; if he made a lot of money he wouldn't be paying much in tax, while if he doesn't make a lot of money, he will pay a lot in tax ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
On a serious note horetore. you realize that like all rich people pay more taxes than a poor person. They may not pay as much as their supposed to but they will probably pay more.
Percentage-wise, no. And that's the real point, as a poor man is hurt way more than a rich man by the taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
And yet it's the rich guys who are whining most about it...
i know percentage they may or may not (many do though), but i meant as a raw number.
Yes, but that's quite irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Idaho, you are missing my objection to your quote. I inferred that you meant that millionares have nothing better to do with their money than buy an ivory backscratcher. This is simply not true. There are many millionaries who give the extra money they made to charity or use it another useful manner. Not everyone who makes money is a greedy SOB, and I strongly dislike when people try to make that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
A millionaire who leaves a restaurant without paying their bill is a thief. A millionaire who leaves a country without paying their tax is also a thief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I'm not talking about this particular situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Just wanted to make sure
That would be a simplification, and we are taught to be cautious in the face of them... Not that you are correct or incorrect, just noting that simplifying politics and economics tends to not work/ be accurate. A good rhetorical metaphor though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Yeah , if they more than doubled their combined salary they would almost be in the top 5%.Quote:
My family is almost in the top 5% of American wealth. sound wealthy? We make under 200,000 a year with two people working.
Everyone has a fundamental right to pay the minimum amount of tax they can legally get away with.
Every year over here the politicians and media complain about people avoiding tax legally , especially when they put up the figures that show so many of the highest earners paying nothing at all in income tax. As far as I am concerned fair play to 'em , thats what accountants are for, if people themselves cannot be bothered with avoiding tax then that is their problem and they shouldn't moan about those that can be bothered.