Egypt's economics and the US's
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Economics does play a role in it don't you think?
of course; I believe economics plays a big role but I don't think that it is the only reason. I'm going to get flamed for this but this is how I really feel about the subject. People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk shit that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside. America has poor people (very poor people). You don't see our poor people marching by the millions into Washington D.C. and asking for our President to leave the country. We have had riots in the past but they were just riots. I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I don't flame people. So you won't get any fire from me. ;P
Slacker007 wrote:
People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk sh*t that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside.
People love to hate the US because of the interference our government has in their countries. How many foreign country bases do we have on US soil? I'm not aware of any. Yes they want our economic way of life and enjoy our culture, but not by supplanting their own cultural identity. They hate how we sell weapons to their governments and then cry foul. From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Slacker007 wrote:
I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I agree completely. I was making sure I understood your thoughts. I will say this though. I'm getting increasing interested in the idea that companies have more power through your job then the government does on our lives. If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
That chart doesn't take into account stock options, and other types of wealth compensation.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Very true... There's also foreign tax shelters, though those are more for corporations than individuals. And actually, that chart is a little misleading, in the way it accumulates instead of showing the statistics at each percentile range... With a little simple subtraction, you end up with: 99th Percentile (Top 1%): 19% of the income, pays 37% of the taxes 95th-98th Percentile (Next 4%): 14% of the income, 20% of the taxes 90-94th Percentile (Next 5%): 11% of the income, 11% of the taxes <-- Evening out already 75-89th Percentile (The rest of the top 25%): 22% of the income, 17% of the taxes So the only ones paying a higher percentage of the taxes than their income are the top 5%, not the top 25%. And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wolfbinary wrote:
What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own?
I've lived all my life in the UK, but I have travelled around and currently live in the Middle East. Things are quite grotesque here, there are a highly-visible rich who form a small part of the society, who fly around in really expensive cars (whilst avoiding damaging them on poor roads). Then there are the middle class, who form a much smaller proportion of the society than would in the developed post-industrial countries of the west. Lower down the income bracket, there are a large group of people who just make enough to live, these form the majority here, and they have few luxuries. At the bottom (economically) there are people small (but still sizeable) proportion of people still literally living in tents, anywhere else they'd be living in shanty towns. In general, the further down the income scale they are, the harder they feel the economic situation.
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this.
I'd say economics has precipitated this, but there has been a long (read decades) build up. In general there is a feeling of powerlessness that has been acting as a pressure-cooker, many countries have suppressed the resulting anger, a few are notable for "disappearances". In the Middle East, the majority have to live with day-to-day degradation, little freedom of speech and lip-service democracy, all against a backdrop of widespread poverty. Here is a joke that was doing the rounds a few years ago: "President Bush phoned Mubarak to congratulate him on his 90% majority in the presidential elections. When they were talking Bush said that he wished he knew how Mubarak did it, so Mubarak told him. Bush took Mubarak's advice and went to the polls. Come election night the result was announced: 90% Voted for Mubarak." I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Isn't Jordan the one where the king basically just fired and replaced his entire cabinet and prime minister? I don't know the details of the Jordanian government, but if it's something like the UK where the real legislative power is with the prime minister and parliament (Or equivalent), then that should probably placate the people. I'm not saying it's a good solution, but it could be enough to calm everyone down and change their attitude from "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" to "Eh, I guess I can live with that"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say economics has precipitated this,
That is the general gist of what I was trying to drive home. You put the point on it for me.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'm quite lucky, I currently live in Jordan where things are better than the surrounding Arab states, the protests here really are economic and pressing for electoral reform.
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Do you think Jordan will catch any of this too?
Unlikely, the problems effecting Tunisia and Egypt aren't the same as those here. In general power lies with the king, and he is well respected by most of the populace.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low? What's that payout as compared to their income? That would be a more useful figure... If you've got one guy making five million a year, and 99 guys making 50k a year, then that one guy is making more than 50% of the total income, so he SHOULD be paying at least 50% of the taxes despite being only 1% of the (sample) population. Yes, that's an exaggerated example, but I'd like to see the actual numbers. EDIT: Ok, I just took another look at that link, and realized it gives exactly that information... Well, close enough to it... Still, the below point stands. And that's with a flat tax, which doesn't work when you take the poor into account. If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you. If you're making minimum wage, paying even 20% of it back in taxes could make it difficult for you to feed, clothe, and house yourself.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low?
I advocated nothing. I pointed out how wrong GC was, and offered my opinion about progressive taxation and the effect it had on politicians. However, in case you are interested, I believe that the only hope the U.S. has of getting back on an even keel is the Fair Tax[^] but please don't bother to follow the link unless you are ready to spend some time reading and thinking the proposals through.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you
But it might convince you to move to some place where they only took twenty-five percent. The millionaires tax in New York State, according to their Governor had exactly the opposite effect from intended. Instead of increasing the amount of money the State took from the very rich, it decreased it because the folks who were tired of being the golden goose simply moved to states without an income tax at all. While it would be harder to move out of the country, it would not be impossible.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out?
I have no idea, but I don't see how it would make a difference, We weren't dealing with the mean, we were dealing with the top 1%
wolfbinary wrote:
Because the law is written not to.
One of the nice things about writing tax law is that you can reward your friends and punish your enemies. Why is there a tax deduction for mortgage interest, but not for automobile loans, or rent payments? Why do non-profits not only not pay taxes - forcing you to pay more, they give out tax deductions to people who agree with their aims - which may not coincide with yours? As you say, why are capital gains taxed at a different rate from the guy who makes his living with his hands? Why does Michele want to add a tax to soft drinks, but not increase the tax of cigarettes? In every case the answer is because the Congress is not simply attempting to raise money to pay the government's expenses, but to reward certain behaviors, and punish others.
wolfbinary wrote:
So what are you really saying?
That we're fucked.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
I don't flame people. So you won't get any fire from me. ;P
Slacker007 wrote:
People love to hate the United States of America but they want what we have and they should want what we have (for the most part). They want what I have but at the same time they want to hate me because I'm an American and they will talk sh*t that I'm a greedy American bastard. I feel that the Islamic countries (almost all of them) want what America has and this drives them crazy. Crazy because we are the infidels yet our Government and way of life is a trillion times better than theirs and it eats them up inside.
People love to hate the US because of the interference our government has in their countries. How many foreign country bases do we have on US soil? I'm not aware of any. Yes they want our economic way of life and enjoy our culture, but not by supplanting their own cultural identity. They hate how we sell weapons to their governments and then cry foul. From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Slacker007 wrote:
I can walk out in the middle of my street and yell to everyone that my President is an ass and I will not be dragged from my home and tortured and killed. America is not perfect, what country is? I'm not saying my country is perfect. So yes economics plays a strong role but these people are not uprising because of the sole reason they are poor.
I agree completely. I was making sure I understood your thoughts. I will say this though. I'm getting increasing interested in the idea that companies have more power through your job then the government does on our lives. If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Actually, it started when we entered WWII. We won, and that's the biggest sin of all.
wolfbinary wrote:
If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
If you said it about Chris where he could read it, he could ban you from CP. If you said it about me in my house, I could throw you out.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to.
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work. It all depends on how stock options are "cashed-in". For most stock option holders, who are unable to simply buy the option outright, they have to do what's called a cashless exercise (basically borrow money from the brokerage to buy the stock at the strike price and then immediately sell the stock at market or a given price). The profits then *are* indeed taxed as normal income. In order for them not to be taxed as normal income, you would have to have the money to buy the stock option at the strike price and hold onto the stock for one year and a day (and hope that the stock price remains greater than the strike price). You could then sell the stock and only pay a 15% or 20% capital gains tax on your gains ((current price - strike price) * number of shares). *Extremely few* people are able to do that.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
-
That graph, although simple, is very useful. I don't suppose there is a version that gives a breakdown per person?
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
I don't suppose there is a version that gives a breakdown per person?
I must not understand. I am thinking of a Y axis with 300 million points on it.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Very true... There's also foreign tax shelters, though those are more for corporations than individuals. And actually, that chart is a little misleading, in the way it accumulates instead of showing the statistics at each percentile range... With a little simple subtraction, you end up with: 99th Percentile (Top 1%): 19% of the income, pays 37% of the taxes 95th-98th Percentile (Next 4%): 14% of the income, 20% of the taxes 90-94th Percentile (Next 5%): 11% of the income, 11% of the taxes <-- Evening out already 75-89th Percentile (The rest of the top 25%): 22% of the income, 17% of the taxes So the only ones paying a higher percentage of the taxes than their income are the top 5%, not the top 25%. And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
I see. And who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide when you can afford to pay a little, or a lot more? Is it OK if I decide you are making too much and I want you to give me 5% because I am making less than you are? If not, why do you, or your representatives in Congress, get to decide that about Little Billy Gates? Many of the people who make a higher income than average, I'm guessing you are among them, do so because they contribute to the wealth of the society as a whole. Many of those at the lower end (the 49% the graph doesn't show) have figured out how to contribute nothing to society and exist on what the government takes away from those who do.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And if you're in the top 5%, you can afford to pay a little more so the poor people can eat.
I see. And who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide when you can afford to pay a little, or a lot more? Is it OK if I decide you are making too much and I want you to give me 5% because I am making less than you are? If not, why do you, or your representatives in Congress, get to decide that about Little Billy Gates? Many of the people who make a higher income than average, I'm guessing you are among them, do so because they contribute to the wealth of the society as a whole. Many of those at the lower end (the 49% the graph doesn't show) have figured out how to contribute nothing to society and exist on what the government takes away from those who do.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Many of the people who make a higher income than average, I'm guessing you are among them, do so because they contribute to the wealth of the society as a whole.
Well, I'm in a high enough tax bracket that almost half of my paycheck goes to Uncle Sam, but do I really contribute to society as a whole? I mean, I work for a hedge fund :)
Oakman wrote:
Many of those at the lower end (the 49% the graph doesn't show) have figured out how to contribute nothing to society and exist on what the government takes away from those who do.
Is the guy working the counter at McDonalds for minimum wage contributing to society? Sure, in his own small way. Can he afford to pay more than a trivial percentage of that back in taxes? Probably not. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they've "figured out how to contribute nothing" and are leeching off the government. They could be working low-paying jobs (Isn't it the libertarian crowd that wants to get rid of minimum wage?) or be down on their luck. Yes, there are a small percentage that abuse the system, but do you want to punch the entire lower class, or do you want to figure out how to find that small subset and bust them for tax evasion?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So are you advocating that 40% is too high, or too low?
I advocated nothing. I pointed out how wrong GC was, and offered my opinion about progressive taxation and the effect it had on politicians. However, in case you are interested, I believe that the only hope the U.S. has of getting back on an even keel is the Fair Tax[^] but please don't bother to follow the link unless you are ready to spend some time reading and thinking the proposals through.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you're making a million a year, paying 50% of it back in taxes is annoying, yes, but it's not exactly going to kill you
But it might convince you to move to some place where they only took twenty-five percent. The millionaires tax in New York State, according to their Governor had exactly the opposite effect from intended. Instead of increasing the amount of money the State took from the very rich, it decreased it because the folks who were tired of being the golden goose simply moved to states without an income tax at all. While it would be harder to move out of the country, it would not be impossible.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
However, in case you are interested, I believe that the only hope the U.S. has of getting back on an even keel is the Fair Tax[^] but please don't bother to follow the link unless you are ready to spend some time reading and thinking the proposals through.
Interesting... Off the top of my head, I can see it negatively impacting international tourism, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment. I'll withhold judgement for the time being.
Oakman wrote:
But it might convince you to move to some place where they only took twenty-five percent. The millionaires tax in New York State, according to their Governor had exactly the opposite effect from intended. Instead of increasing the amount of money the State took from the very rich, it decreased it because the folks who were tired of being the golden goose simply moved to states without an income tax at all. While it would be harder to move out of the country, it would not be impossible.
If the tax was raised enough, then yes, this would happen. For every percentage point they add to the tax rate, some number of people will leave the area. But right now, those people are here. They're paying the high rate, which means they've decided that paying that rate and staying is more beneficial to them than moving somewhere else and paying less. From that, I think it's safe to conclude that the higher tax rate is, as I said, "not exactly going to kill them." I'm not advocating shifting MORE of the burden to the upper class... I'm just against shifting it AWAY from them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
Many of the people who make a higher income than average, I'm guessing you are among them, do so because they contribute to the wealth of the society as a whole.
Well, I'm in a high enough tax bracket that almost half of my paycheck goes to Uncle Sam, but do I really contribute to society as a whole? I mean, I work for a hedge fund :)
Oakman wrote:
Many of those at the lower end (the 49% the graph doesn't show) have figured out how to contribute nothing to society and exist on what the government takes away from those who do.
Is the guy working the counter at McDonalds for minimum wage contributing to society? Sure, in his own small way. Can he afford to pay more than a trivial percentage of that back in taxes? Probably not. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they've "figured out how to contribute nothing" and are leeching off the government. They could be working low-paying jobs (Isn't it the libertarian crowd that wants to get rid of minimum wage?) or be down on their luck. Yes, there are a small percentage that abuse the system, but do you want to punch the entire lower class, or do you want to figure out how to find that small subset and bust them for tax evasion?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is the guy working the counter at McDonalds for minimum wage contributing to society? Sure, in his own small way.
And therefore he gets paid less, he is less valuable to our society. The problem comes when people are no longer paid in some rough ratio to their contributions.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I mean, I work for a hedge fund
I once wrote software to manage megachuches. Most folks will whore if the price is high enough. But, yeah, I expect you do contribute.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Isn't it the libertarian crowd that wants to get rid of minimum wage?
No. It is anyone who understands real-world economics.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, there are a small percentage that abuse the system
Almost 50% of the people in this country pay no income taxes. "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Ben Franklin, who was known for his charitable works.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
However, in case you are interested, I believe that the only hope the U.S. has of getting back on an even keel is the Fair Tax[^] but please don't bother to follow the link unless you are ready to spend some time reading and thinking the proposals through.
Interesting... Off the top of my head, I can see it negatively impacting international tourism, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment. I'll withhold judgement for the time being.
Oakman wrote:
But it might convince you to move to some place where they only took twenty-five percent. The millionaires tax in New York State, according to their Governor had exactly the opposite effect from intended. Instead of increasing the amount of money the State took from the very rich, it decreased it because the folks who were tired of being the golden goose simply moved to states without an income tax at all. While it would be harder to move out of the country, it would not be impossible.
If the tax was raised enough, then yes, this would happen. For every percentage point they add to the tax rate, some number of people will leave the area. But right now, those people are here. They're paying the high rate, which means they've decided that paying that rate and staying is more beneficial to them than moving somewhere else and paying less. From that, I think it's safe to conclude that the higher tax rate is, as I said, "not exactly going to kill them." I'm not advocating shifting MORE of the burden to the upper class... I'm just against shifting it AWAY from them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
From that, I think it's safe to conclude that the higher tax rate is, as I said, "not exactly going to kill them."
That assumption is based on the premise that nothing ever changes, isn't it? I believe Hosni Mubarak was thinking that since his citizens had put up with it yesterday, they would put up with it tomorrow.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not advocating shifting MORE of the burden to the upper class.
Well, another choice is to shift more of it onto your kids and grandkids. Or do you favor inflating the money supply - which is the cruelest tax, falling most heavily on the poor, that there is.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is the guy working the counter at McDonalds for minimum wage contributing to society? Sure, in his own small way.
And therefore he gets paid less, he is less valuable to our society. The problem comes when people are no longer paid in some rough ratio to their contributions.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I mean, I work for a hedge fund
I once wrote software to manage megachuches. Most folks will whore if the price is high enough. But, yeah, I expect you do contribute.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Isn't it the libertarian crowd that wants to get rid of minimum wage?
No. It is anyone who understands real-world economics.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, there are a small percentage that abuse the system
Almost 50% of the people in this country pay no income taxes. "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Ben Franklin, who was known for his charitable works.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Ben Franklin, who was known for his charitable works.
But is there anything wrong with a construction worker or a store cashier? They contribute to society, albeit in a small way. They go to work every day, and earn a salary to support themselves and their families... Yet they may not be much higher than the poverty line. Start increasing their taxes, and they'll be in big trouble. They're not a detriment to society... They just fill a different slot, and having that kind of basic infrastructure makes it easier for OTHERS to make significant money, which becomes revenue. I agree that government handouts are excessive... I just don't think an across-the-board increase is the way to solve it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
From that, I think it's safe to conclude that the higher tax rate is, as I said, "not exactly going to kill them."
That assumption is based on the premise that nothing ever changes, isn't it? I believe Hosni Mubarak was thinking that since his citizens had put up with it yesterday, they would put up with it tomorrow.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not advocating shifting MORE of the burden to the upper class.
Well, another choice is to shift more of it onto your kids and grandkids. Or do you favor inflating the money supply - which is the cruelest tax, falling most heavily on the poor, that there is.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Well, another choice is to shift more of it onto your kids and grandkids. Or do you favor inflating the money supply - which is the cruelest tax, falling most heavily on the poor, that there is.
You're trying to set up a false choice here... Taxes may not need to be raised or cut. They may just need to be maintained until the government can reduce spending enough to justify cutting them. (Granted, the government seldom actually cuts spending... But that IS the goal)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Trollslayer wrote:
I don't suppose there is a version that gives a breakdown per person?
I must not understand. I am thinking of a Y axis with 300 million points on it.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Oakman wrote:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Ben Franklin, who was known for his charitable works.
But is there anything wrong with a construction worker or a store cashier? They contribute to society, albeit in a small way. They go to work every day, and earn a salary to support themselves and their families... Yet they may not be much higher than the poverty line. Start increasing their taxes, and they'll be in big trouble. They're not a detriment to society... They just fill a different slot, and having that kind of basic infrastructure makes it easier for OTHERS to make significant money, which becomes revenue. I agree that government handouts are excessive... I just don't think an across-the-board increase is the way to solve it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I agree that government handouts are excessive... I just don't think an across-the-board increase is the way to solve it.
Neither do I, nor did I suggest raising taxes. Think through the Fair Tax - including its provision for those who make less than enough for a decent lifestyle - and you'll see why I think it might be the only way to get out of this mess. The trick is that by taxing consumption rather than production, we reward the frugal and get our cash from those who like to throw their money around - surely they - regardless of how they get their money, or how much of it they get - are the ones who, by definition, can afford it. Meanwhile we've eliminated social security and Medicare, eliminated most of the IRS, and allowed people to keep their entire paycheck, if they work. Why do you think the fair tax would scare off international tourism (not that I'd be too upset if it did - that market goes up and down like a yo-yo anyway.)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I agree that government handouts are excessive... I just don't think an across-the-board increase is the way to solve it.
Neither do I, nor did I suggest raising taxes. Think through the Fair Tax - including its provision for those who make less than enough for a decent lifestyle - and you'll see why I think it might be the only way to get out of this mess. The trick is that by taxing consumption rather than production, we reward the frugal and get our cash from those who like to throw their money around - surely they - regardless of how they get their money, or how much of it they get - are the ones who, by definition, can afford it. Meanwhile we've eliminated social security and Medicare, eliminated most of the IRS, and allowed people to keep their entire paycheck, if they work. Why do you think the fair tax would scare off international tourism (not that I'd be too upset if it did - that market goes up and down like a yo-yo anyway.)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Why do you think the fair tax would scare off international tourism (not that I'd be too upset if it did - that market goes up and down like a yo-yo anyway.)
Easy... Everything costs 20-30% more when you start charging federal sales tax in addition to the existing state sales tax. When it becomes more expensive to visit here, less people visit. It wouldn't END tourism by any stretch, but it would reduce it, and some areas rely on it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)