Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:19:17
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Frazzled wrote:They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
The point of many tax havens is not that its legal, but the money is hidden from detection. Overseas earnings, and cash revenues from many businesses (such as casinos) never get put through the books, but if they were allowed to accumulate in the US the tax authorities could deem revenue earned based on the wealth collected.
The bigger economies of the world fight with the little tax haven nations over this all the time.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:23:28
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
Ontario
|
Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
|
DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:23:36
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
whembly wrote:
Rule 1: Life is not fair -- get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
You see when a rich person comes up to a poor person and says "Life is not fair -- get used to it!" he/she just comes across as a condescending ass, rich people don't get to say life's unfair as they can escape the injustices of the world whenever they go home to there big mansion with all
the latest bells and whistles. Poor people can't do that they have to spend every moment of there day dealing with wealth inequality as they scrape by to feed there kids, don't have any money invested in there kids education, don't have any money left over to fix the broken sink, etc. Also rich
people don't seem to understand that you can accomplish things and you'll get no reward in return. Besides with this "life's unfair, deal with it" mentality if that's how life's supposed to be lived then why not go back to feudal society, since asking for any sort of balance in the system is clearly
too much to ask.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:27:02
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
sebster wrote: Frazzled wrote:They can only shelter it in tax havens if you permit tax havens in the tax code.
The point of many tax havens is not that its legal, but the money is hidden from detection. Overseas earnings, and cash revenues from many businesses (such as casinos) never get put through the books, but if they were allowed to accumulate in the US the tax authorities could deem revenue earned based on the wealth collected.
The bigger economies of the world fight with the little tax haven nations over this all the time.
I wonder if we'd update our tax code to regional, rather than global? That might help... a bit. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote:Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
How you figure?
Remember, Canadian entitlements are different... ya'll have Universal Healthcare. That's a big expense.
Also, revenues are expected to top $2.7 trillion in 2013... that's a record amount.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:28:23
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:29:23
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:At the same time, (and the reason why I was there in the first place)... people can work hard to better themselves.
That's why I don't engage those who deride that whole "bootstrap mentality"... they just don't get it.
Thing is, it's a great thing to have a society where a person, no matter how they were born, has a good chance to pull themselves up have a comfortable middle class life, or possibly even better. The point is that you can't just pretend that such a thing exists, you have to go out and actually find out if you do.
And people do study this kind of thing, and I've already given a couple of links to studies on the subject, and can give plenty more. The plain reality is that the US simply doesn't have a society where 'bootstraps' really works anymore. The social mobility indicator (ie the number of people born in poverty who rise up through society) is lower than just about every other developed country.
In that situation, just saying 'bootstraps' just plain isn't good enough. Bringing in policies that actually return the US to having one of the best levels of social mobility in the world, actually living up to the ideal most like to pretend still exists, well that'd mean funding to level the quality of education for all kids, minimum wage, expanded college scholarship programs, and so on.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:31:25
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote:
Rule 1: Life is not fair -- get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
You see when a rich person comes up to a poor person and says "Life is not fair -- get used to it!" he/she just comes across as a condescending ass, rich people don't get to say life's unfair as they can escape the injustices of the world whenever they go home to there big mansion with all
the latest bells and whistles. Poor people can't do that they have to spend every moment of there day dealing with wealth inequality as they scrape by to feed there kids, don't have any money invested in there kids education, don't have any money left over to fix the broken sink, etc. Also rich
people don't seem to understand that you can accomplish things and you'll get no reward in return. Besides with this "life's unfair, deal with it" mentality if that's how life's supposed to be lived then why not go back to feudal society, since asking for any sort of balance in the system is clearly
too much to ask.
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:32:59
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).
You have to turn up to vote, or face a small fine. But once you're there, you're in a little cardboard booth with a ballot and a pencil, you can scrawl whatever you want on the ballot. One year I wrote 'I'm very disappointed in all of you' because, frankly, the options we had that year were a poor crop at best, with both sides in a race to bottom on race baiting.
I might do the same in the next Federal election, because frankly they've been a terrible lot this time around.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:33:52
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
Ratbarf wrote:Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
Oh really?
Federal tax rates for 2013 wrote:
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.
|
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:35:51
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
sebster wrote: whembly wrote:And in Australia, you're required to vote. (not sure if it's really enforced... doesn't sound like it).
You have to turn up to vote, or face a small fine. But once you're there, you're in a little cardboard booth with a ballot and a pencil, you can scrawl whatever you want on the ballot. One year I wrote 'I'm very disappointed in all of you' because, frankly, the options we had that year were a poor crop at best, with both sides in a race to bottom on race baiting.
I might do the same in the next Federal election, because frankly they've been a terrible lot this time around.
Holy gak! I think I'm going to do that the next time.
"I haz disappoint in dis".
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:36:32
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Desubot wrote:Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.
Umm, social mobility is measured over generations. That is, 'how much of a factor is the wealth and success of the father in the wealth and success of the son?'
To the extent that you believe that the father's achievements should be the primary cause of the son's achievements, you disagree with social mobility. I refuse to believe that you, or anyone else other than European royalty, would actually believe such a thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: Desubot wrote:Though now the question would be how much help do they need? and at what point does it just become a free pass in life?
No system ever proposed in any Western democratic country has ever been a free pass. Even in the Scandanavian countries, where social mobility is at its highest, there is still a massive advantage in having wealthy, successful parents (and to some extent that is how it is always going to be how it is, outside of economic advantages the positive role model of the parent is always going to be a massive factor).
Point being, we know that more even education systems (ie you get the same quality of education anywhere in country, no matter how poor your region is), and higher minimum wages increase social mobility greatly. And I refuse to believe that anyone would honestly say that a person born into a poor family ought to have a harder time . The only reason that social mobility remains low is because people simply don't understand how it actually works.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:41:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:44:11
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant
Ontario
|
Kovnik Obama wrote: Ratbarf wrote:Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
Oh really?
Federal tax rates for 2013 wrote:
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.
It's not just income tax, there are other federal taxes as well that they have to deal with. Pretty much my dad told me that all the money he and my mother earn until about halfway through june goes to federal taxes of some sort or another.
|
DCDA:90-S++G+++MB++I+Pw40k98-D+++A+++/areWD007R++T(S)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:46:11
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
whembly wrote:
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Most rich people are born into wealthy lifestyles.
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
I think the poor have every right to be envious of other classes and I have nothing but respect for someone trying to make the best out of situation with so few opportunities to improve, the fact that they're bitter about this is understandable to me.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:47:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:51:13
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:What are you exactly saying?
Because property (aka, wealth) gainfully earned is protected in the Bill of Rights and numerous case laws.
I mean, sure the wealthy can be taxed more at higher rate, because it's accepted. At the same time, we could go to a Flat-Tax system and it'll still be "legal" (whether it's a good idea or not, that's up to debate).
What are you really REALLY trying to say?
Let's pick on Bill Gates... a multi-billionaire. It would be legal to tax him at high rate. But, it'd be ridiculously illegal to say "hey... your first billion, that's enough... anything after that, just give it to the state".
I'm explaining that your point, that there is nothing in the constitution saying that one has a right to a 'fair' level of wealth, is true. But that the contrary is also true, there is nothing in the constitution saying wealth can't be redistributed to something more fair.
Now, whether that means that it should happen is entirely up for debate. We can observe what the population as a whole has supported in law (some level of redistribution through progressive taxation), and draw conclusions from that.
But we can't make any conclusions about what the country ought to do, in terms of the constitution, because the document is entirely silent on the matter. That's all I was saying. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:Woah...woah.
I'm not 'splaining myself well here buddy.
Taxation to support a government and the services they provide is fine.
It's when you get into the class warfare to increase taxes just so that you can redistribute wealth is what I take umbrage from... that's all.
Yeah, but taxation to support government services, and taxation to redistribute is a distinction without meaning. What you might call redistribution someone else might call good government.
The point being there's no moral principle that defines when taxation goes from being good and proper, to being 'redistribution' or 'theft'. That's why these things get sorted out through the on-going negotiation that is democracy.
And really... this topic is nothing more than a bitch-fest. If we don't like the certain aspects, engage the political process.
Well, part of determining what we actually believe should happen is talking about what we'd like, and figuring out if that is practical or actually a good idea at all. Threads like this, in theory, should help that process.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 04:54:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:54:47
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote:
Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Most rich people are born into wealthy lifestyles.
Eh... I don't buy that. Even if it were true... so what? They were lucky. I consider myself lucky for even being born! (in the USofA too!).
Seriously... being alive is like the lottery itself, your life should be the "victory lap".
The point is to make something of yourself! That doesn't necessarily mean, "make as much money as you can"... but, find something that you can do to be happy.
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
I think the poor have every right to be envious of other classes and I have nothing but respect for someone trying to make the best out of situation with so few opportunities to improve, the fact that they're bitter about this is understandable to me.
Sure it's understandable, but do something about it.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 04:59:34
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Sure, the US income tax code is actually quite progressive, indeed it's a lot more progressive than countries we'd all consider much more left wing.
The problem is that it isn't the only part of society, and looking at it in isolation is a mistake. Notice how when I listed the things that need to change to improve social mobility in the US I didn't mention the tax code?
Instead look at the steady decline of minimum wage in the US (in inflation adjusted dollars it's about a half of what it once was). Look at the increasing concentration of wealth and income among the top earners, and the decline of median income in real dollars. And look at the figures on actual social mobility, come to terms with the reality that it is much harder for a person born into poverty in the US to reach a middle class or upper class position in life than in other developed countries.
Ignoring those things and believing the US is not heavily tilted towards the rich is, once again, delusional. Automatically Appended Next Post: whembly wrote:I agree with you there buddy!
The problem now is that most investors are "sitting" on their cash... there's a distinct lack of movement on this front.
Not sure how we can get that moving again.
A bigger and better stimulus plan would have stopped much of the problem
But that opportunity is gone now, from here you can ensure that government spending remains constant in the short term, and otherwise just wait as things slowly get better. And while that sucks, console yourself that you're not Europe, where austerity is seeing things get worse and worse.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 05:01:16
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:05:06
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Chongara wrote:
Freedom = Good
America = Freedom
Video was critical of america.
Therefore Video was critical of freedom
Therefore video was critical of good.
Therefore the video was, what good isn't.
What good isn't, is evil.
Hate is evil
Therefore evil is hate.
As already established, video is evil, therefore video is hate.
Video was about america, therefore video hates america.
America is freedom, therefore video hates freedom.
Simple logical really.
So you mean really mean Freedom with a capital F?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:07:15
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
whembly wrote:Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 05:09:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:11:25
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote:
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
And she's fething successful now.
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:16:13
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Well, the problem is that 'earn' is not really a thing. I mean, consider a doctor. Let's even consider that doctor was born to migrant parents, but through incredible hard work he excelled in school, and studied incredibly hard, became a top ranking heart surgeon and bought his house.
I mean, no-one would claim that if anyone earned his house, it'd be that guy. But then let's consider what might happen if his family didn't migrate. If he was instead born and raised in Cambodia, where he still studied very hard (for the 7 years of school that are available) before taking a junior position in a hospital, and working so hard that eventually he was allowed to study nursing, where he studied so hard, and worked so hard that eventually he was allowed to study to be a doctor through night school. And finally achieving that dream, and becoming a heart surgeon, he finds he can command an income that's the equivalent of $20,000 USD, less than what your average working slob in the US can command for making coffee at Starbucks.
Point being, it's not just the person's hard work that determines what they earn. It is the system that we all work in that makes that person able to command their income. And while we all like to believe that the nice paycheque we earn is due to our inherent awesomeness, it's all a lot more complicated than that,
(actual numbers made up, by the way. I have no idea what Cambodian heart surgeons or StarBucks employees earn. Point being that you get paid a lot more to do a job in a developed country that you do for doing the exact same job in the third world. I do know that StarBucks coffee sucks, though.)
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Probably not going to happen, though
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:18:37
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Kamloops, BC
|
whembly wrote: Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote:
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
And she's fething successful now.
Well, I'm glad to hear the good news but not every poor person get's that lucky plus even if in my hypothetical the mother does go to university she still isn't guaranteed she'll make it all the way through or even have a stable career after that (she lacks a lot of connections with the scientific
community), plus she's taking a major risk that could create even bigger debt.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:21:30
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Actually, what I'd find interesting is this:
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
For rest of the people.
You really need to do something about their wealth, since they're the largest population group. They're the ones putting money into the economy, not the wealthy! They're the people who demand the majority of products. With such an economically weak group of people, it's no wonder that your economy is in the dumps!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:21:32
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
sebster wrote: whembly wrote:Sure they can... who's to tell you that they didn't earn that mansion/lifestyle?
Well, the problem is that 'earn' is not really a thing. I mean, consider a doctor. Let's even consider that doctor was born to migrant parents, but through incredible hard work he excelled in school, and studied incredibly hard, became a top ranking heart surgeon and bought his house.
I mean, no-one would claim that if anyone earned his house, it'd be that guy. But then let's consider what might happen if his family didn't migrate. If he was instead born and raised in Cambodia, where he still studied very hard (for the 7 years of school that are available) before taking a junior position in a hospital, and working so hard that eventually he was allowed to study nursing, where he studied so hard, and worked so hard that eventually he was allowed to study to be a doctor through night school. And finally achieving that dream, and becoming a heart surgeon, he finds he can command an income that's the equivalent of $20,000 USD, less than what your average working slob in the US can command for making coffee at Starbucks.
Point being, it's not just the person's hard work that determines what they earn. It is the system that we all work in that makes that person able to command their income. And while we all like to believe that the nice paycheque we earn is due to our inherent awesomeness, it's all a lot more complicated than that,
(actual numbers made up, by the way. I have no idea what Cambodian heart surgeons or StarBucks employees earn. Point being that you get paid a lot more to do a job in a developed country that you do for doing the exact same job in the third world. I do know that StarBucks coffee sucks, though.)
Er... what's wrong with the system again? o.O
Let me say, we "have it good" here.
*shrugs* maybe 'cuz I'm exhausted and slightly buzzed on Macallen now... dunno what we're even discussing now.
Life is too short to be acrimonous and envious of other people.
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Probably not going to happen, though 
Well... sure. Why have a maid at all? Unless they look like this:
Automatically Appended Next Post: ExNoctemNacimur wrote:Actually, what I'd find interesting is this:
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
For rest of the people.
You really need to do something about their wealth, since they're the largest population group. They're the ones putting money into the economy, not the wealthy! They're the people who demand the majority of products. With such an economically weak group of people, it's no wonder that your economy is in the dumps!
How 'bout this: Tax the super rich foundations as income.
The Ivy League school's foundations are ginormous.
Or... just fething redefine "income" as any new money.
Oh, and change the US tax code from Global to Regional... that'll repatriate money back in the states.
Never gonna happen tho. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote: Cheesecat wrote: whembly wrote:
Most poor people don't have the time to do this.
Poppycock. That attitude disregards those who were able to pull themselves out if it.
You think the single mother working 60 hours on two gakky minimum wage jobs, who has kids to feed, a broken boiler that she can't to afford to fix because she has all these expenses and debts to pay is wondering if her if her love for biology could get her a lucrative career?
We holy gak... you've just described my mum! (exception her career is in accounting).
And she's fething successful now.
Well, I'm glad to hear the good news but not every poor person get's that lucky plus even if in my hypothetical the mother does go to university she still isn't guaranteed she'll make it all the way through or even have a stable career after that (she lacks a lot of connections with the scientific
community), plus she's taking a major risk that could create even bigger debt.
So... let me ask you this. Can we save everyone?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 05:26:01
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:30:48
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
sebster wrote: Desubot wrote:Well like i said i will always disagree with social mobility because its unfair to those who succeeded in the first place.
if everything is supposed to be equal there is no point in succeeding as there will always be hand outs. its the just same thing over and over again.
Umm, social mobility is measured over generations. That is, 'how much of a factor is the wealth and success of the father in the wealth and success of the son?'
No i don't believable that the primary cause of a son's achievement is caused by the fathers wealth. what i do believe is that the fathers success in life should increases the odds (not free pass) for the son to succeed is this not fair?
why should my children have the best in life? the best education the best medical care?
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 05:35:49
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Zealous Sin-Eater
Montreal
|
Ratbarf wrote:It's not just income tax, there are other federal taxes as well that they have to deal with. Pretty much my dad told me that all the money he and my mother earn until about halfway through june goes to federal taxes of some sort or another. Such as? Property taxes are local. Sale taxes are never accounted in the evaluation of the total amount of taxes paid in a year, because everyone include them in the good's prices. Business taxes are, well, business taxes, and don't make up for much anywho. Here, have a look : Tax in Canada: an overview wrote: Taxation is a vast and complex subject, but it is also one of the most important aspects of life in your new country of which you need to be aware. This article aims to provide a general overview on the tax system in Canada. Who handles tax in Canada? The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for handling taxation issues for individuals, families, businesses, employers, not-for-profit groups, non-residents and visitors in Canada. Québec, however, has its own income tax system, separate to that of the CRA, which is administered by the Revenu Québec. Income tax The federal government and provincial governments all charge a personal income tax in Canada and, as in most countries, taxes vary in relation to the size of a person’s income. Federal government taxes are, in general, a lot higher than what the smaller, provincial governments collect. You may opt to defer a portion of your personal income tax to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and/or tax sheltered savings accounts in order to save for your retirement. If you’re paying income tax you must file a return with the CRA (or Revenu Québec) at the end of each tax year. Current federal income tax rates in Canada: 15% on the first $40,970 of taxable income 22% on the next $40,971 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452) 26% on the next $45,080 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,941 and $127,021 29% on taxable income over $127,021 Sales tax The Canadian federal government levies a 5% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on most goods and services sold or provided in Canada. General groceries and medication drugs are ‘zero-rated’ and therefore taxable at 0%. All the provincial governments (except Alberta) also charge a Provincial Sales Tax (PST). Harmonized Sales Tax combines GST and PST and is charged in most provinces. Corporate tax Canadian businesses must pay tax on capital and profit income, although corporate tax makes up a small portion of tax revenue in total. GST registration is compulsory for all businesses in Canada. Property tax Personal property tax in Canada is also known as millage tax or mill levy. This tax is based on the value of the property and on the property tax rate, both of which are determined by local authorities. On top of this you have excise taxes on certain goods, such as cigarettes and alcool. You have estate taxes, but that's something that happens once or twice a lifetime, and international commerce taxes. Anyway, another interesting graph to show you how average our taxation rate is compared to the rest of the world : First percentage is for a single person with no child, second is for a married person with two children. Australia 28.3% 16.0% Korea 17.3% 15.2% Austria 47.4% 35.5% Luxembourg 35.3% 12.2% Belgium 55.4% 40.3% Mexico 18.2% 18.2% Canada 31.6% 21.5% Netherlands 38.6% 29.1% Czech Republic 43.8% 27.1% New Zealand 20.5% 14.5% Denmark 41.4% 29.6% Norway 37.3% 29.6% Finland 44.6% 38.4% Poland 43.6% 42.1% France 50.1% 41.7% Portugal 36.2% 26.6% Germany 51.8% 35.7% Slovakia 38.3% 23.2% Greece 38.8% 39.2% Spain 39.0% 33.4% Hungary 50.5% 39.9% Sweden 47.9% 42.4% Iceland 29.0% 11.0% Switzerland 29.5% 18.6% Ireland 25.7% 8.1% Turkey 42.7% 42.7% Italy 45.4% 35.2% United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1% Japan 27.7% 24.9% United States 29.1% 11.9% Source: OECD, 2005 data [2]
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 05:39:52
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:03:55
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:Actually, what I'd find interesting is this:
If you just increase taxes on the rich, they'll just put their money in off-shore tax free havens or leave the country. The money will then leave the USA, which is not good.
If you lower taxes on the rich, they'll probably just hoard it. Seriously, what are you ever going to do with one billion dollars sitting in your bank account. They're never ever going to spend it all.
So keep taxes on the rich as they are. Realistically only bad stuff will happen if you increase taxes or nothing will happen if you lower taxes save less government revenue, which is bad for everyone.
Ah, the problem there is you've believed the 'aargh there's change something bad will happen' people, who inevitably shout dire consequences everytime something changes, or a change is proposed. What's weird is that these people seem to pay no attention to the actual real world, and suffer no accountability despite the fact that being wrong is practically their profession.
Thing is, the idea that money can just be shifted off-shore is tax rates go up simply isn't true. There are controls on that now, not perfect controls but certainly something that it is a challenge, and an expense, to get around. And there are very good reasons to have money domestically (despite the internet noise, the US is still an excellent place to invest in new businesses and make money, I mean, ever noticed where most of the major internet companies were founded?). While higher taxes on the rich give them greater temptation to move money off-shore, it's a game played on the margins - a 1% tax hike might tip 3 multi-millionaires into shifting everything to the Cayman Islands. Rates would have to get a hell of a lot higher before you lost more money than you gained. Like rates of probably 60 or 70%.
Nor, for that matter, do the rich just hoard all their money if taxes are lower. Why would they even do that? Other than spite against the peasants, what would be in it for them? While the economic stimulus of tax cuts on the rich are lower than tax cuts on the wealthy, it doesn't mean there is no stimulus at all.
Point being, you somehow argued yourself into believing that somehow, for some reason, that right now whatever the taxes in the US are must be the absolute optimum position. But you've had multiple reforms of your tax code in the last two decades, why is now, and not any of those other positions, the optimum set of tax rates?
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:11:24
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
Absolutely agree. In fact, you know what would be nice? If the poor person could accept that earning just $25,000 a year still means he is much better off than most of the world, and at the same time the rich person could realise that no, seriously, he doesn't actually need a third maid, and carrying a little more of a tax burden in order to fully fund equality in schools across the country would be really nice.
Probably not going to happen, though 
I would settle for an acknowledgment of mutual need and grudging respect.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:11:47
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
whembly wrote:Er... what's wrong with the system again? o.O
Let me say, we "have it good" here.
*shrugs* maybe 'cuz I'm exhausted and slightly buzzed on Macallen now... dunno what we're even discussing now.
Nothing is massively wrong with the system, and yeah, across the board, relative to elsewhere in the world you've got it good.
But the point is that in putting too much emphasis on the word 'earned' we give a pay cheque a meaning that doesn't actually make sense, if you look at how money is 'earned' in different places around the world.
Once we realise that, then concepts like 'redistribution is theft' stop making any sense at all. Instead we start to see things in terms of what system is best overall, what system balances equality against personal incentive to get as much as possible of each?
Well... sure. Why have a maid at all? Unless they look like this:
Is it possible to have three of those? Because if it is I'm going to figure out how to get rich.
How 'bout this: Tax the super rich foundations as income.
The Ivy League school's foundations are ginormous.
A mate is a stockbroker, and he tells a story about how to tell when the stock market is about to crash. See, every so often Harvard will look at the size of its investment portfolio and realise the revenue from that alone can pay for the school's running, and they'll put out a story saying they're not going to charge anymore, and just select candidates based on merit.
And when you read that story, get the hell out of the market. Because within like three to six months of Harvard saying that, the market will crash and Harvard will lose like $3 billion. Only to steadily build it up again, realise their portfolio is large enough to pay for the school's running, and... Automatically Appended Next Post: Desubot wrote:No i don't believable that the primary cause of a son's achievement is caused by the fathers wealth. what i do believe is that the fathers success in life should increases the odds (not free pass) for the son to succeed is this not fair?
why should my children have the best in life? the best education the best medical care?
Sure, your children should have the best you can offer. You seem to be thinking of this as some kind of zero sum game, that if social mobility is achieved you have to drop down the totem pole so someone else can also succeed.
But I'll ask you this, if a hard working, smart kid is born to poor parents, why should he have a harder time becoming a successful professional, than a kid born to middle class or wealthy parents? Why should he have to go to poorer schools, and get less time and guidance from his parents because they're both working 60 hours a week in gak jobs just to get the bills paid?
And isn't it in everyone's best interest that the doctors in the next generation are drawn from the smartest and most hard working people? And not just the smartest and most hard working people who happened to be born to parents with a certain level of wealth? Wouldn't that mean the pool of possible people who could become doctors increases, meaning we can be more selective in who becomes doctors, meaning we get better doctors and therefore better medical care? Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:I would settle for an acknowledgment of mutual need and grudging respect.
Great answer
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 06:19:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:20:58
Subject: Re:Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
Is it possible to have three of those? Because if it is I'm going to figure out how to get rich.
There are lots of cute girls in Australia.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:23:50
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
The reason why most of the major internet companies were founded there is because of good infrastructure and good people there. If I had a group of good people around me to start a business, I'm not going to jump to another country because it's supposedly better over there. There'd be too many risks. If people did move countries to start business up, Singapore would have thousands of new business because it's the easiest country to do business in.
If you lower taxes on the rich, what do you think that they're going to do with the rest of the money? They've already got millions that they're never going to spend, and it's not like that they're going to invest it directly into the economy.
What controls are there against shipping money to tax havens?
Did you read the rest of my post?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/03/08 06:27:04
Subject: Weath Inequality video, pretty interesting.
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Ratbarf wrote:Goodness gracious you Americans don't pay much in taxes. My parents taxes are around 55% a year for the Federal government alone.
No, we pay relativly normal taxes. You guys pay absurdly high taxes. And Europes even higher. High vs low, all from your point of view.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
|
|