Egypt's economics and the US'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)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) -
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)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everything costs 20-30% more when you start charging federal sales tax in addition to the existing state sales tax.
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop. Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate. And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase. ;)
“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:
Everything costs 20-30% more when you start charging federal sales tax in addition to the existing state sales tax.
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop. Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate. And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase. ;)
“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:
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop.
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate.
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it. Yes, the exchange rate matters, but if the price goes up by 20%, some percentage of people WILL decide to go elsewhere.
Oakman wrote:
And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase.
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
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:
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop.
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate.
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it. Yes, the exchange rate matters, but if the price goes up by 20%, some percentage of people WILL decide to go elsewhere.
Oakman wrote:
And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase.
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
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:
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
“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:
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
“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:
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Fair enough, but it seems to me that if things are more expensive, people would be less likely to visit... How much less likely is of course open to debate... Obviously other effects could counterbalance the price increase.
Oakman wrote:
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
I took a quick look through it... As I said, it's interesting... I'm extremely skeptical about it, but I don't claim to be an economist.
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:
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_
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
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_
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
The VAT tax is relatively easy to evade with buying goods from a foreign countries/different states. Also you have to be very careful to increase the VAT only for the luxury goods. If you have a flat VAT tax increasing it will automatically increase to food prices thus hitting badly the poor/retired people since the most of their income is going for food and clothing. This is very good implemented in US; you have zero VAT for the food unless it’s processed food.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Tax evasion
I think you mean tax avoidance which isn't illegal the way tax evasion is. It may be true in the UK, but this has been shown to be a myth in the U.S. The percentage of income paid in taxes by the very rich and the rich is higher than that of the middle class.
fat_boy wrote:
unequal burden on the poor
I remember reading that, like the US, almost 50% of the people living in England pay no income tax at all. The burden, I would guess, if there is one, would fall in the middle class. The problem with your VAT is it is a snowball. The same product gets taxed over and over again - leading to Britain having gas prices that are twice what America has.
“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
-
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?"
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
And yours demonstrates your lack of understanding of the English language. Unless you meant that his statement shows that he is not ignorant of how stock options work.
“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
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
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_
Income inequality has been growing in this country for some time. In 1976 the top 1% received 9% of the income. Now that number has increased to 24%. 33% of the increases in income during that period went to the very top. The bottom 60% are actually making less - about 95 cents on the dollar. Economic mobility is much less here than in most European countries. A poor American is less likely to see his children move up the economic ladder than a German parent. It is perfectly reasonable for a society to use Estate taxes and progressive income taxes to redistribute wealth. We have set up an economic system that tends to concentrate the wealth and government policys are appropriate tools to correct for that. Organized labor is also a useful component in giving labor a voice to compete with the power of capital. Unfortunately organized labor in the private sector has been mostly destroyed and now public labor unions are coming under attack. Interesting side note in this chart[^] The US has a higher Gini coefficient than Egypt. In other words there is more income inequality in the US than in Egypt.