Billionaire Forbes labels UK's 45% tax rate "brain dead"

[Robbien]

Source: Daily Telegraph

Mr Forbes, the owner of capitalist magazine Forbes, said that the Government's decision to increase the tax for those earning more than £150,000 was the "exact wrong thing to do to revive an economy and signalled the message: 'We don't like success.' "

Mr Forbes said that the Government should have instead boosted the standard rate of tax for those earning up to £70,000.

He added that the Government should have instead looked at reducing tax for the top tier of the population. . .

The billionaire also suggested the need for a drastic cut in the main rate of corporation tax in the UK, from the current rate 28pc to 18pc

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/3568327/Billionaire-Forbes-labels-UKs-45pc-tax-rate-brain-dead.html

---

Forbes appears not to be shy about his position on class warfare.

[hobbit709]

1. F##K him and the horse he rode in on.

Let the bastard live on the $600+/mo my mother lives on from her SS check.

[SharonAnn]

36. Steve Forbes is brain-dead. He's got an automatic tape replaying "Give me more!"

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Top Tax Rate Under Eisenhower Was 91%

And our economy was never better: http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

It's particularly appalling that Forbes is yammering about penalizing "success", seeing as he's merely a member of the "lucky sperm club".

[ohio2007]

15. from your link;

The highest tax bracket on earned income today is 35%. During Ike's administration, the highest tax bracket was 92% in 1953, and 91% thereafter.
Yes, taxes on the Rich were almost three times higher under the Republican Eisenhower compared to our current President, or compared to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=213

[HughBeaumont]

39. And . . . gee, look at that there first column . . .

Hmmmmmmmmmm, that's peculiar. Tax rates were lowered starting in 1922 and then dropped like a stone in 1924-5. Gee, who were those presidents that did that? Could they be Republicans Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the former considered to be one of the worst and most corrupt presidents ever (of course, it's kind of hard to top The Failure Fuhrer) and the latter an early proponent of the elements that make up laissez-faire capitalism? Oh yes, very much so.

And what happened during, and specifically near the end of, this decade? Anybody? Anybody? There was a boom . . . yes, and then a bubble . . . stop me if you've heard this before . .. and then a giant CRASH!!!

WOW, WHO could've seen THAT coming?

Apparently not Milton Friedman, St. Reagan or any of the Bewshes. Because these assholes kept on trying and trying and trying this for four decades, starting in South America and then for the past 28 years here.

Boom/bubble/CRASH! Boom/bubble/CRASH! Boom/bubble/CRASH! Each crash worse than the previous one.

Or maybe they DID see it and thought "Oh well, bad economies only affect the oxygen thieves anyway, so who cares? WE'LL still get ours."

The rich ended up with theirs THEN, and they ended up with ours NOW.

Classic.

Forget your history and you'll fall for anything when it's repeated.

[NashVegas]

49. You Have To Wonder How Much of That Crash Was Caused By People

With a sudden influx of $$ burning holes in their pockets, and needed investments (bubbles) to put it to work.

[fascisthunter]

25. This is a Truth many on the Right Don't Want people to know about

because essentially they are liars, thieves and scum that could care less about anybody but themselves.
They love the idea of there being an underclass to prop up their bloated egos and their preciously pampered lifestyles.

[JonQ]

32. When he was president

half the world was still recovering from wwII. China and india were backwaters, not emerging economic powers. Europe and japan were still devastated by the worst war in history and the USSR was hardly in a position to compete with us economically. Of course our economy was booming; all our potential competitors were either living in rubble or rice paddies.

You can't compare the economic situation of the 50s to today, when china and india are both major economic powers. And Europe and japan have thoroughly recovered and are doing quite well actually.


Now, if we were to bomb all those countries flat then we could have a strong economy regardless of any other factor. But that may lead to some complications.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Most Goods Were Made In America

Global trade was minuscule compared to today, so the condition of the other countries wasn't *that* much of a factor.

[JonQ]

44. Most goods were made in america

again, because the rest of the world was bombed flat. We weren't importing goods from abroad when there were no goods to import, yes. But we were certainly exporting to them.

[Wabbajack_]

35. That's kind of excessive.

50% sounds good to me.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. I Guess That Makes Eisenhower More Liberal Than You

His Republican-controlled Congress was also more liberal than you.

Not that I'm knocking you; but it is nothing short of astonishing how far to the Right the US has drifted in 50 years!

[Wabbajack_]

45. Different paradigm

I don't think it's as simple as "more liberal". You are correct the paradigm shifted to the right. In today's world I doubt he'd (Ike) be for a 92% top rate. How many people are? Are you? How about the most progressive Dems in congress? Bernie Sanders?

[Sex Pistol]

50. 91%...!!! Good grief! There must have been many more deductions

than there are these days.

With rates that high if you made a million dollars you would only net a modest $90,000.

[HereSince1628]

3. Pirates support the "right" to pillage

How is a national economy to defend itself? In Forbes' mind it shouldn't.

[Overseas]

38. Good one! True and funny! //nt

[madrchsod]

4. hard to squeeze anymore money out of the serfs...

[Doremus]

5. Mr. Supply Side has shorted a fuse at the mere thought of his money helping people.

The fvcking megalomaniac is so devoid of humanity that he doesn't care if he sounds like a blithering idiot touting economic theories that have been disproven again and again.

A horrible, horrible person.

[denverbill]

6. Worthless POS. Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

I'm beginning to think the estate tax should be 100% on estates over $5 million. Maybe shitheads like him wouldn't have so much free time to run around the world whining about how high their taxes are. Fucking crybaby billionaire trust-fund baby. At least Paris Hilton has some talent.

[desktop]

8. You beat me to it.

If it wasn't for his inheritance, this guy would be lucky to have a $30K a year job.

[bulloney]

22. People like Forbes have had so much money and had it come in so easily their whole lives.

People like him are always looking for ways to bring in more money faster. The way they do this is by attacking the tax structure.

Never mind that Forbes' grandfather became a millionaire when the upper tax rate was almost triple what it is today. It's because wealth was being redistributed and more people were able to contribute to the economy.

Since Reagan, there's been a concerted effort to keep lowering the upper tax rate and abolish the estate tax. If that happens, we'll have even more of a feudal society than we have today.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The 45% won't even come in until 2011 anyway

the hope is that the economy will be over the worst by then. And Forbes ignores that a 0.5% national insurance (payroll tax) increase is scheduled for then too, for those earning over £20,000, so lower-paid people will be paying a bit more too, just as he wanted.

As for the corporation tax cut he wants, I think it's irrelevant at the moment - firms will be happy to make any profit at all, and they're not going to say "let's hold back - if we make a big profit, they'll tax us a bit more". The only thing that happens with corporation tax is a race to the bottom when countries compete for where new investment will be done - if all else is equal, they'll pick the one with lower tax rates. At the moment, their only worry is whether they could invest anywhere and make any sort of profit at all.

[nradisic]

9. Forbes is a s brain dead as they come...

This sycophant does not have a leg to stand on...Why would anyone pay attention to or care what Steve Forbes said?

[not fooled]

10. Greedy 0.1%ers, that's who

Forbsie "validates" their selfishness, covered with a thin veneer of "supply side economics".

Justification for greed, pure and simple. :puke:

[machI]

11. The people with the most should contribute the most

Even at 45%, they are way better off than the majority of the other citizens.

[patriotvoice]

14. How about a little more marketing: "People who TAKE the most, should contribute the most."

People can easily support more tax for those who take more -- that's reasonable: you eat more pie, you bring more pie to the party. People aren't so easy with taxing those who happen to make the more -- it's unreasonable: you made more than you need, bring it to the party.

The linchpin then is to construe the rich as bigger consumers -- which they often are. They consume more lavish goods and services (but not necessarily more ordinary goods and services) and certainly consume more of the common wealth.

[No Elephants]

16. They do take the most. Our natural resources, our airwaves, our environment, our

infrastructure, etc.

[patriotvoice]

30. True: not disputing. I'm just suggesting that, when speaking about this topic, appropriate...

language be used. Many people are affronted by the notion of taxing someone just because they're wealthy. Very few are reluctant to tax those who take or consume the most.

The larger point is we should work the marketing. Progressives seem to have a difficult time doing that.

[DBoon]

12. the rest of us are already sacrificing

in unemployment, higher prices, no credit

and *he* expects a tax break.

As she said, "let them eat cake"

[OwnedByFerrets]

13. History proves him dead wrong. Every time there is a tax increase

on the wealthy, economies grow.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. He's full of crap though

Thatcher came in power 1979, she cut the top rate of tax, then hiked the national sales tax from 5% to 17.5%, she plunged the economy into a very deep recession. The Thatcherites were following the economic advice of a certain Milton Friedman at the time.

[acmavm]

18. The don't call it The Predator Class for nothing.

[boomerbust]

19. Steve knows

whats coming under Obama. Sorry Steve you POS.

[Phred42]

20. Wont that Fascist Forbes be embarrased when thsi plan WORKS for teh Brits!

:bounce:

[mitchum]

21. Another whiner from the Lucky Sperm Club

[hedgehog]

23. In 1956,. the mortgage rate was 4%.

[fascisthunter]

24. Steve is a Needle-Nose Fascist Prick

people like him, deserve to live in poverty.

What's brain dead are the people who fall for the words of wealthy pricks like him who claim taxes harms economies.... well, we have proof, that isn't the case at all.

[louis-t]

26. Yeah, cuz it worked so well here.

Must. Punish. Working. Class.
Asshole.

[high density]

27. Is there any proof that shows rich people actually work less because of higher taxes?

If they want to work up to £150k and then quit for the rest of the year, that's fine with me. Rich people with tons of money sitting in their own private investments does not create jobs or stimulate the economy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I don't care if they do work less. Poor folks would like to work too. n/t

[aquart]

29. He inherited his job. He never worked for a damn thing.

He's actually a perfect example of why inherited wealth should be severely taxed. To keep the Assholes of Entitlement busy putting food on their tables instead of buying governments because they have nothing else left to buy.

[LeftishBrit]

31. UK citizen LeftishBrit labels Forbes "brain dead"

[sendero]

33. Just another libertarian douchebag..

... who hasn't yet figured out that it's THEIR POLICIES that have created this wealth concentration at the top that is PART AND PARCEL of the economic morass we now find ourselves in.

Their entire story line is 100% BULLSHIT and Americans are seeing the tangible result.

[bean fidhleir]

34. Adam Smith had his number: '"All for ourselves and nothing for other people" seems,

in every age of the world, to be the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.'

[HughBeaumont]

37. Steve, you fell out of the right womb. Therefore, you can shut the fuck up. NOW.

GOD I get so TIRED of these fuckers. It's called PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE, something you assholes haven't been doing since Reagone was inaugurated.

Oh, and . . . um .. . .Steve? Tax cuts on the wealthy don't lead to job creation or economic growth (you know, unless you're well monied. Like Steve Forbes). Fact. Not fiction. FACT.

[PM Martin]

40. They are not even hiding their contempt of the working class anymore.

This devil wants to raise taxes on the working class! :argh:

There should be a 100% tax on estates of his size.

[SOS]

41. Steve Forbes net worth reported to be $430 million (2007)

How about a 90% tax on that?
He would be left with only $43 million, but he'd probably be able to scrape by.

[T_i_B]

46. One of the worst things that Gordon Brown has done

was to get enticed by the flat tax nonsense that the likes of Forbes spout and abolish the 10p tax rate as a result. That 10 tax rate on low earners would have been brilliant at helping people during tough economic times and abolishing it was a huge (and unpopular) mistake for Labour to have made.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Yes. This was wrong in every way

Disastrous to poorer people - and the effect, on them and on the economy, will be even worse in the present mess. And politically disastrous: led to the massive drubbing for Labour in the local elections, Ken Livingstone's defeat for re-election as Mayor of London, and has increased the chance of the Tories taking over.

[and-justice-for-all]

48. "The billionaire" can go fuck himself..nt

[bemildred]

51. This is all so 1929. nt