Rich landowners need to be taxed more to close income gap, Thai forum told

[thaimlord]

I get my stats from the fact that people who are not earning wages seldom are taxed. They make constructions to stay out of taxation. Its a common known fact that this is happening, if you don't then I suggest its you who read up on things. I am a tax accountant and I hate taxes but in this country the rich (talking real rich) make sure they almost pay no taxes. Land tax would be a great way to get some money from them.

In general if you read my other post you would know I hate taxation of for instance the middle class (salary slaves) who are taxed while company owners (not LTD's) are often making much more and not paying taxes it all goes off books. Same goes for the real rich they avoid taxes. While they may pay more baht wise its the middle class who pays more percentage wise and that is wrong.

As a tax accountant do you help the rich to avoid taxes? Or do you only work for middle class people?

:-)

Now you're forcing him to show his hand. And obviously whichever way he answers, it doesn't look good for him.

Hehe, nice move.

Cheers

TL

[thaimlord]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

[SoilSpoil]

Land tax is a great idea, and so is a progressive income tax for every one (!) given the fact that corruption is non existent and law enforcement taken to the letter!

Happy societies are build on tax equality , just look at the likes of Finland, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden and Denmark.

[timber]

In the US and Canada property taxes are used for school taxes and as an incentive to use land. Special breaks

are incorporated for forest and agriculture.

[Johpa]

This is such a naive way to tax. No person who's struggled to build wealth is going to put up with it. It's really really hard to get wealthy, and some idiot thinks they're then going to be happy to have it disproportionately taken away from them. Wealthy people vote with their feet when governments try this tack on them.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

One does usually have to be willing to work hard to become wealthy, but luck and serendipity are often more important. I know many hard working people who are not wealthy and within the wealthiest family in the US, the Waltons, not one of them has ever had to work. Perhaps you would support a higher estate tax?? Anyways, when capital becomes disproportionately distributed (high income inequality) then there is little choice, its really just high school math, than to have progressive taxation. Otherwise, the concentration of capital will result in destruction of aggregate demand and eventual financial collapse. If you feel that this needed system is robbery than I hope you enjoy the alternative. Besides, in a capitalistic system the money always percolates back to the top and only the matter of plumbers trickles down. So just have a little patience and, if you continue to work, you should get that tax money back with interest as the economy expands.

[rametindallas]

A reasonable, yearly tax on large plots of undeveloped land would possibly make the costs of owning/hoarding vast tracts of land uneconomical and it would cause the land to be put on the market. The more land that is put on the market, the lower the prices to buy land. Land in Thailand is so overpriced that regular folks just can't afford it and even farmland is too expensive. Having more land in more people's possession and forcing the development of that land to become productive to avoid the taxes would grow the economy and the government's coffers would benefit from the expanded economic growth. Currently, since there is no incentive to 'spread the wealth' through increased land ownership, the wealthy land owners sit on it and, in the process, stifle competition.

[northernjohn]

This is such a naive way to tax. No person who's struggled to build wealth is going to put up with it. It's really really hard to get wealthy, and some idiot thinks they're then going to be happy to have it disproportionately taken away from them. Wealthy people vote with their feet when governments try this tack on them.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

While I agree partly with what you say the real rich here pay almost no tax. So tax them make a threshold for the tax of a couple of million baht and you only hit the real rich. The middle class is already hit enough because the rich don't pay.

It is an idiot idea. Tax the rich 25% of all their money and it will lesson the gap how ever the poor will still be just as poor as they don't pay tax any how. The rich will still be rich and they will pay tax on it. More money in the national treasury but the poor are still struggling.

I do agree to a land tax. There is way to many houses and abandoned buildings sitting vacant because it does not cost the owner any money. Make him pay tax on it he will think twice before abandoning it to turn into just another community eyesore.

[mutha289]

I doubt that Thailand is significantly different in this matter than any other country. As I see it the main problem is not that the rich are not taxed sufficiently already but that with the resources they have at hand many avoid paying the taxes that they should . . . loopholes! Close the loopholes and make everyone pay what they are supposed to . . . okay back to reality!

[northernjohn]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

I was wondering if any one was going to bring that up. If the super rich were to pay tax and they decided to just shut all their business down where would the workers go for employment?

Like it or not we need them. I have been waiting to hear some one say what do they do with their money. They could just invest it in bonds and live the rest of their life no problem. How about the thousands of people who would be put out of a job?

[Johpa]

I was wondering if any one was going to bring that up. If the super rich were to pay tax and they decided to just shut all their business down where would the workers go for employment?

Like it or not we need them. I have been waiting to hear some one say what do they do with their money. They could just invest it in bonds and live the rest of their life no problem. How about the thousands of people who would be put out of a job?

To answer your first question, the shut down businesses would be replaced by new smaller businesses operated by people willing to make less money than the current overpaid CEOs, or, in a perhaps more enlightened shift, the businesses would be purchased and then opened and owned by the workers, someting that is already happening in the US but that is purposely underreported in the US corporate controlled press. You can Google Gar Alperovitz, or follow him on Facebook to get further details on such worker owned businesses. Let's face it, no business owner is going to simply close down a business when they can sell it. And shutting down a business does not ineveitably create a universal lack of demand for the widget or service no longer sold. The bottom line is that the sky would not fall if businesses were to be closed and most business owners know that they can easily afford a minor hit to their gross incomes. Of course there will always be those on the margins who will be more greatly impacted by change and these are the people who whine and cry the most about taxes knowing that they are probably already living a tad above their means.

[HerbalEd]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

There's nothing wrong with wealth per se. In fact, I like it. However, there should be a level playing field, which hasn't historically been the case in Thailand and much of the world ... and it remains so today, although there has been some improvement.

As to taxes: I think everyone should pay the same .... i.e., the same percentage of their income. For example, a 10% tax where the guy who makes $25K/year pays $2.5K and the guy who makes $25M pays $2.5M. I do not think it fair that the rich have to pay a larger percentage. More money, yes ... but not a higher percentage.

Edited July 25, 2014 by HerbalEd

[robblok]

As a tax accountant do you help the rich to avoid taxes? Or do you only work for middle class people?

Actually mainly small businesses some are quite a lot bigger but I help them to avoid tax as much as possible according to the law. But id say 99% of my clients are middle class. Not Thais and not in Thailand. Where I am from people with wealth more as +/- 20K euros are assumed to have made 4% on that and are taxed 25% on that 4%. Personally I find it thievery as making 4% is hard currently also what is 20K euros they should up this quite a bit.

[robblok]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

Nice point, though it is true but they won't leave their high profits just because they are taxed a bit. But seriously if these companies pay the taxes and the guy don't evade them (in Thailand its easy for the super rich to evade it all) Then I am all ok with it.

But some sort of land tax is a great way to go against speculation and driving up prices of land.

[robblok]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

There's nothing wrong with wealth per se. In fact, I like it. However, there should be a level playing field, which hasn't historically been the case in Thailand and much of the world ... and it remains so today, although there has been some improvement.

As to taxes: I think everyone should pay the same .... i.e., the same percentage of their income. For example, a 10% tax where the guy who makes $25K/year pays $2.5K and the guy who makes $25M pays $2.5M. I do not think it fair that the rich have to pay a larger percentage. More money, yes ... but not a higher percentage.

The whole point of different percentages is so you can let the poor pay less and get income more closer together. I am for this though not into the extreme. Effort and risk should be rewarded.

[Dimpys Dad]

The socialist resentment, greed and envy monster rears its ugly head.

[HerbalEd]

Wish I lived in your perfect world. However, in the real world ... esp. Thailand and the rest of the third world ... the super rich are very often from families who have been super rich for many generations and the only struggle they've done to earn their wealth was to work their way out of their mother's womb.

Any twit can pick out one or two people (who they probably don't know anyway) and say they didn't struggle, but to get rich, especially very rich is very very hard to do. If you don't think it is, then you're a crapload smarter than I am.

And with the possible exception of Zuckerberg, yes I'd say the others really did struggle to get where they are today.

Patriots? What on earth are you on about? It's not patriotic to pay disproportionate tax. It's not unpatriotic to pay it either. If you're going to attack my views, at least try to keep on subject.

TL

I accept what you're saying, and it may well be the case that their father, and their father's father were wealthy, but what you're not taking into account is that the family is not wealthy by itself. The family is wealthy because they employ 10s, 100s maybe 1,000s of people. Thais. These families bring prosperity and fortune to the country. These families employ the people who till the land and forge the steel. These families make up the fabric of the industrial nation that is Thailand. Without them everyone reverts to subsistence. Without them, the country cannot progress, it can only subsist.

Or at least, that's how I see it :-)

TL

There's nothing wrong with wealth per se. In fact, I like it. However, there should be a level playing field, which hasn't historically been the case in Thailand and much of the world ... and it remains so today, although there has been some improvement.

As to taxes: I think everyone should pay the same .... i.e., the same percentage of their income. For example, a 10% tax where the guy who makes $25K/year pays $2.5K and the guy who makes $25M pays $2.5M. I do not think it fair that the rich have to pay a larger percentage. More money, yes ... but not a higher percentage.

The whole point of different percentages is so you can let the poor pay less and get income more closer together. I am for this though not into the extreme. Effort and risk should be rewarded.

Under my example of a fixed-percentage tax, the people that make less money pay less and the people who make more money pay more. Don't you see that?

To repeat my example (using 10% as an easy-math example): The guy who makes $25k/year pays $2.5k tax, and the guy who makes $25M/year pays $2.5M tax.

I do think there should be a plateau .... say below $20K/year ... where there is no tax.

Edited July 26, 2014 by HerbalEd

[robblok]

The whole point of different percentages is so you can let the poor pay less and get income more closer together. I am for this though not into the extreme. Effort and risk should be rewarded.

but not a higher percentage.

Under my example of a fixed-percentage tax, the people that make less money pay less and the people who make more money pay more. Don't you see that?

To repeat my example (using 10% as an easy-math example): The guy who makes $25k/year pays $2.5k tax, and the guy who makes $25M/year pays $2.5M tax.

I do think there should be a plateau .... say below $20K/year ... where there is no tax.

Actually that is the same thing as different percentages ... plateaus / different percentages they all benefit the poor and close income gaps a bit. I think we are on the same page.

[Johpa]

The socialist resentment, greed and envy monster rears its ugly head.

Poppycock! Grow up! That is the weakest, sloppiest, if not downright absurd and juvenile argument out there. I am a proud socialist who by chance happens to be on a first name basis with three of the top 30 wealthiest people in the US. Rest assured I would not be welcome in their midst if I were in anyway resentful or envious of their wealth or success. It is the system that I criticize and resent, not the individuals, as I recognize their will always be those more financially successful than others. I would just prefer to see some limits placed upon those inequalities in wealth, espcially in access to health and education, which requires a more progressive form of taxation.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Johpa

[Local Drunk]

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Benjamin Franklin.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,

[3NUMBAS]

The amount of valuables given to monk Nenkham shows the social strata is badly unbalanced .

billions of baht ended up in his big pockets and he has scarpered with the lot ,private jet and luxury cars and foreign properties galore

no wealth redistribution seen anywhere ,the gulf just gets bigger

Edited July 26, 2014 by 3NUMBAS

[Local Drunk]

"Laws like to Cobwebs catch small Flies: Great ones break thro' before your eyes." Franklin yet again in 1734

[wolfmanjack]

Sorry if I confused you, Thaimlord.

Speaking from my own experience, I know that if I possess $100k, it is comparatively easy on the stock market to increase that 100k to.... (fill in your "winnings" from trading in the market). But let's say I buy 1000 shares of Company X at $100 at 9.30 am in NY.

If that share increases in value to $101 by lunchtime, I will have made precisely $1000 in 3 hours without the slightest bit of "struggle".

Now, if I only have 10k to trade with, accumulating wealth will take a much much longer time, but even if I do eventually convert my 10k into, say, 20k, the word "struggle" will not apply to this series of transactions.

And if my government wants to increase my capital gains tax to spread the wealth around a bit, I am not going to be heading towards any exit. What is wrong with the concept of taxing those who can well afford it so that the country as a whole may benefit from increased revenue?

The answer to that question will situate a person on his private view of a citizen's "duty" to society.

Good example of how the rich get richer without struggling to do so. I would like to add that most of the rich people today inherited a fair amount if not all their wealth from their parents. Rags to riches stories are not the norm for the truly rich.

Also if they want to vote with their feet and not pay the land tax, let them. The land will still be here to be auctioned off to the rich that stay in country and are willing to pay the tax.

Edited July 27, 2014 by wolfmanjack

[northernjohn]

The socialist resentment, greed and envy monster rears its ugly head.

Poppycock! Grow up! That is the weakest, sloppiest, if not downright absurd and juvenile argument out there. I am a proud socialist who by chance happens to be on a first name basis with three of the top 30 wealthiest people in the US. Rest assured I would not be welcome in their midst if I were in anyway resentful or envious of their wealth or success. It is the system that I criticize and resent, not the individuals, as I recognize their will always be those more financially successful than others. I would just prefer to see some limits placed upon those inequalities in wealth, espcially in access to health and education, which requires a more progressive form of taxation.

Well what you say sounds good. but it is just one side of the picture.

How many of the people on the other side of the picture are willing to put in the hours it takes to become super successful. How many are willing to risk it all with the hope of making it big.

The reality is not many they prefer their safety zone.

[Johpa]

Poppycock! Grow up! That is the weakest, sloppiest, if not downright absurd and juvenile argument out there. I am a proud socialist who by chance happens to be on a first name basis with three of the top 30 wealthiest people in the US. Rest assured I would not be welcome in their midst if I were in anyway resentful or envious of their wealth or success. It is the system that I criticize and resent, not the individuals, as I recognize their will always be those more financially successful than others. I would just prefer to see some limits placed upon those inequalities in wealth, espcially in access to health and education, which requires a more progressive form of taxation.

Well what you say sounds good. but it is just one side of the picture.

How many of the people on the other side of the picture are willing to put in the hours it takes to become super successful. How many are willing to risk it all with the hope of making it big.

The reality is not many they prefer their safety zone.

As I noted, I recognize that some will be more financially sucessful that others. I would be the last person to stand in the way of someone's first several hundred thousand dollars of income. I want that incentive to be there as much as you, so that it will encourage people to take risk. But at some point, when we approach the upper 1% of earners, I lose any ability to shed tears for taxing people a bit more than others. If the income distribution in the US were a bell curve I would be all for a flat income tax. But the graph looks nothing like a bell curve and that necessitates progressive income taxes that rise as steeply as the income distribution graph.