The wealthiest ten per cent of citizens should be exempted from paying tax

"My family tree has just been completed and I have discovered that I am, in reality, an extremely posh personage with an aristocratic heritage - I am related to the Norwegian royal family no less"I congratulate you on your v'ecent discovery of your aristocratical blood lines. I myself have ties to ze greatest leader of Germany of all time, ze great Adolf Hitler, zo I know vhat it iz like to earn large payment simply for being related to powerful people in ze past. "However, when I bank this cheque I will have to pay capital gains tax on the amount, and possibly inheritance tax too, and the prospect of this is making my blue blood boil." I feel your pain mein friend. I too had to deal with preposterous taxes when I earned my inheritance. It is a despicable practize to take ones hard earned inheritance is it not?"Indeed, back in medieval times, the paupers in rural England used to pay the nobility handsome sums for the privilege of farming the common land that used to collectively belong to them before the ruling classes annexed it all and forced the snivelling little peasants into serfdom."Ze paupers of England had ze v'ight idea too. " One of my Victorian ancestors: Lord Montmorency Wright-Farquhar Saveloy Eggleston d'Eggleston von Gobbscheit, famously said "The idea that the upper classes should be asked to make a financial contribution to the Government just so filthy commoners can educate their children, have access to medication and enjoy the protection of the law is as ludicrous as the idea that they should be allowed to vote." "Zis man Montmormency vas a man ahead of his time, I applaud him for his boldness. "Sadly, these days working class scum not only enjoy free education and health care, paid for through taxation, but also the 'right' to elect wishy-washy, namby-pamby, bleeding-heart lefties as Members of Parliament - and this country is going to hell in a hand-cart as a result."Ze same thing is happening in my beloved Deutschland and it sickens me more zhan vatching a jew be able to work while good blooded Germans languish in unemployment...."Like most financially privileged toffs, I have an enormous sense of self-entitlement, and that's why I affirm that income tax should remain in place, but only the lower classes should pay it, and that the revenue raised from income tax should not be wasted on publicly-funded schools and hospitals but, rather, be used to replace the capital gains and inheritance taxes."I must disagree with you on zhis one. I vill explain my position on zhis issue later in zhis debate, but virst I vould like to address your other points. "As my friends in the Conservative Party point out, taxing high net worth individuals drives wealth creators out of the country and into low tax regimes overseas, and..... this exodus of prosperous people actually damages some of the poorest members of society."Ze conservative party have good intention vith zhere ideas, but zhey vail to distinguish between taxing ze high income individuals too much and taxing ze high income individuals at all. I have problems with ze former, but not ze ladder. I believe zat ze wealthiest 10% should not face incredibly high taxation vates, but zhay should not be exempted from it. I vill explain why in a moment. "The fact is, if the richest ten per cent of citizens were exempted from tax, not only would all those servants keep their jobs but rich people from abroad would be tempted to move to Britain to take advantage of our low tax policies, and employ domestic staff of their own here - which would be a fantastic boost to the economy."Zis is vhat I vas vearing. You mistake that ze top 10% of citizens are ze best people to create jobs and lower unemployment, and zhat ze only vay they can do this iz if ve give them no taxes. In glorious Nazi Germany, ze country under Hitlers rule faced the fastest drop in unemployment ever recorded by drastically increasing military production vich created thousands of jobs very vast. Zhey also annexed numerous industries and suspended ze rights for common workers to protest or unionize, and ze country flourished. However, tax vates never climbed more zhan 14% the entire time, as you can see from zhis article I vound on zis website called "Vikipedia". http://en.wikipedia.org...My point iz, you dont need to abolish taxes only on ze top 10% to spur job creation, because in Nazi Germany the economy vlourished simply vrom taking control of major industries to decrease unemployment. In today's day and age though, zis cannot be done because ze people vill protest too much and vote you out of power, so governments can only try to spur job growth in vays that ze public will not protest, and your plan of cutting services to ze lower 90% and eliminating taxes of ze upper 10% vill anger zhem. Lets look at ze idea zhat lowering taxes on ze top earners leads to a drop in unemployment though. In capitalist America for example, ze government gives billions and billions of dollars to oil companies like Exxon-Mobil and their owners in ze hopes zhat zhey vill use zese zubsidies to hire more workers. Zhis hasnt happened though because vhen you look at how many people zhey have employed from 1999 to 2007, you can see zhat Exxon has actually DECREASED the number of people vorking for zhem from 107,000 in 1999, to 80,800 in 2007. Currently in 2012 zhey only employ 82,000 people vich is a decrease of 25,000 jobs despite receiving billions in funding from ze government. http://fightforbetterus.blogspot.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...Ze point iz, eliminating taxes vor ze top 10% doesnt necessarily mean that unemployment will drop because eliminating taxes for ze companies and going even further by actually giving zhem more money when they are making record profits also does not reduce unemployment. to reduce unemployment, numerous other measures must be utilized to try to drive down unemployment as vell. You mentioned that cutting spending can also be utilized to encourage unemployment, however the zervices zhat ze government funds also emplys and influences countless numbers of people. Public education and hospitals and defense all employ thousands and thousands of people all across Europe and America as vell, so if ve cut services too much, jobs vill be lost, and if zhat same money instead goes to high income earners it vill not encourage zhem to create as many jobs as those that vere lost. That is vhy your proposal vill not work. Cutting funding to schools and hospitals vill increase unemployment since people vork in zhose industries, but giving more money to high income earners and corporations vill not create as many jobs as was lost, as you can zee from my Exxon-Mobil analysis. Zhere are better vays to reduce unemployment besides giving tax breaks to the wealthy and cutting services to the middle class scum to pay for it. 1) Zhe government can ease up on regulations in key areas to help new industries be born or flourish 2) Zhe government can run up massive spending deficits for people to consume more goods and allow industries to expand to meet the demand (like vhat happened in America under Reagan) 3) Zhe government can lower zhe benefits people can receive from things like Zocial Zecurity and allocate those funds elsewhere in the economy to spur job growth4) Ze government can tinker vith their monetary policy to increase job creation 5) Ze government can invest in programs to help ze unemployed find and occupy jobs that are available. 6) Ze government can also heavily invest in military production to icnrease jobs (Something I am in favor of)http://useconomy.about.com...Zhese are a few ways the government can decrease unemployment and are ze veason vhy ve dont need to exempt ze upper 10% vrom taxes vile ze middle class is forced to suffer for it.