Grey Templar wrote:

No, we pay relativly normal taxes.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
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?

 sebster wrote:

 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 shouldnt 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?

 Desubot wrote:
too keep it short, how much money would it take to pay for this one kid. and how many others are there like him. then how many people can possibility pay for such things.

I believable everyone has to rights to a great education i believe i said that in a previous comment. it is entirely possible to do but realistically how much money would it cost, and how much money will you be taking from rich people to get these programs done, considering you really cant tax middle class people as they also need that money.

anyone can say hey we should do this because its the right thing to do but have you ever conceived of the actual budget required? (basically our government cant even control our military budget properly let alone any other social programs. and god help us with obama care and the price tag for that. (and that adds the another previous point that we need to control spending) life aint as simple as i/we want) but i would love to see some one actually make a plan that properly pays for it self.

 whembly wrote:

So... let me ask you this. Can we save everyone?

Grey Templar 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.

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.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 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]

 sebster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
too keep it short, how much money would it take to pay for this one kid. and how many others are there like him. then how many people can possibility pay for such things.

This one kid? There isn't one specific kid we're talking about here I mean, point is you don't know which kids are going to end up excellent achievers and which are not.

I believable everyone has to rights to a great education i believe i said that in a previous comment. it is entirely possible to do but realistically how much money would it cost, and how much money will you be taking from rich people to get these programs done, considering you really cant tax middle class people as they also need that money.

The middle class get taxed. Most tax revenue comes from the middle class (the rich pay a lot more per person, but there's a lot less of them).

And it makes zero sense to talk about the cost of the thing, as if that cost is going to be meaningfully different to what is already being paid. You already pay that cost for every middle class and rich kid in the system (not so much the rich kids, as they go private in many cases). The point is to do the reform work (remove funding from local government level) so that you pay that price for every kid, to expand the talent pool out to the whole population, so that it is truly the best reaching college and becoming doctors, scientists and engineers.

anyone can say hey we should do this because its the right thing to do but have you ever conceived of the actual budget required? (basically our government cant even control our military budget properly let alone any other social programs. and god help us with obama care and the price tag for that. (and that adds the another previous point that we need to control spending) life aint as simple as i/we want) but i would love to see some one actually make a plan that properly pays for it self.

Education doesn't pay for itself. That's not how it works, and not how it will ever work. You spend the money now, and you just accept that's the cost of having another generation of productive citizens.

Economic Mobility
Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.

Yet, in utter disregard of such plain facts, so-called "social scientists" do studies which conclude that America is no longer a land of opportunity, and that upward mobility is a "myth." Even when these studies have lots of numbers in tables and equations that mimic the appearance of science, too often their conclusions depend on wholly arbitrary assumptions.

Even people regarded as serious academic scholars often measure social mobility by how many people from families in the lower part of the income distribution end up in higher income brackets. But social mobility -- the opportunity to move up -- cannot be measured solely by how much movement takes place.

Opportunity is just one factor in economic advancement. How well a given individual or group takes advantage of existing opportunities is another. Only by implicitly (and arbitrarily) assuming that a failure to rise must be due to society's barriers can we say that American society no longer has opportunity for upward social mobility.

The very same attitudes and behavior that landed a father in a lower income bracket can land the son in that same bracket. But someone with a different set of attitudes and behavior may rise dramatically in the same society. Sometimes even a member of the same family may rise while a sibling stagnates or falls by the wayside.

Ironically, many of the very people who are promoting the idea that the "unfairness" of American society is the reason why some individuals and groups are not advancing are themselves a big part of the reason for the stagnation that occurs.

The welfare state promoted by those who insist that it is society that is keeping some people down makes it unnecessary for many low-income people to exert themselves -- and therefore makes it unnecessary for them to develop their own potential to the fullest.

The multiculturalist dogma that says one culture is just as good as another paints people into the cultural corner where they happened to have been born, even if other cultures around them have features that offer better prospects of rising.

Just speaking standard English in an English-speaking country can improve the odds of rising. But multiculturalists' celebration of foreign languages or ethnic dialects, and of counterproductive cultural patterns exemplified by such things as gangsta rap, can promote the very social stagnation that they blame on "society."

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent.

Those "social scientists," journalists and others who are committed to the theory that social barriers keep people down often cite statistics showing that the top income brackets receive a disproportionate and growing share of the country's income.

But the very opposite conclusion arises in studies that follow actual flesh-and-blood individuals over time, most of whom move up across the various income brackets with the passing years. Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.

People who were initially in the bottom 20 percent in income have had the highest rate of increase in their incomes, while those who were initially in the top 20 percent have had the lowest. This is the direct opposite of the pattern found when following income brackets over time, rather than following individual people.

Most of the media publicize what is happening to the statistical brackets -- especially that "top one percent" -- rather than what is happening to individual people.

We should be concerned with the economic fate of flesh-and-blood human beings, not waxing indignant over the fate of abstract statistical brackets. Unless, of course, we are hustling for an expansion of the welfare state.

Most working Americans who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants or refugees who arrive here are not handicapped or distracted by a counterproductive social vision full of envy, resentment and paranoia, and so can rise in the very same society where opportunity is said to be absent

From the St. Louis Federal Reserve-U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Not So Bad
Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases data on the income levels of America’s households. A comparison of the annual data over time reveals that the income of wealthier households has been growing faster than the income of poorer households—the real income of the wealthiest 5 percent of households rose by 14 percent between 1996 and 2006, while the income of the poorest 20 percent of households rose by just 6 percent.

As a result of these differences in income growth, the income of the wealthiest 5 percent of households grew from 8.1 times that of the income of the poorest 20 percent of households in 1996 to 8.7 times as great by 2006. Such figures commonly lead to the conclusion that income inequality in the United States has increased. This apparent increase in income inequality has not escaped the attention of policy makers and social activists who support public policies aimed at reducing income inequality. However, the common measures of income inequality that are derived from the census statistics exaggerate the degree of income inequality in the United States in several ways. Furthermore, although many people consider income inequality a social ill, it is important to understand that income inequality has many economic benefits and is the result of—and not a detriment to—a well-functioning economy.

An Inaccurate Picture
The Census Bureau essentially ranks all households by household income and then divides this distribution of households into quintiles. The highest-ranked household in each quintile provides the upper income limit for each quintile. Comparing changes in these upper income limits over time for different quintiles reveals that the income of wealthier households has been growing faster than the income of poorer households, thus giving the impression of an increasing “income gap” or “shrinking middle class.”

One big problem with inferring income inequality from the census income statistics is that the census statistics provide only a snapshot of income distribution in the U.S., at a single point in time. The statistics do not reflect the reality that income for many households changes over time—i.e., incomes are mobile. For most people, income increases over time as they move from their first, low-paying job in high school to a better-paying job later in their lives. Also, some people lose income over time because of business-cycle contractions, demotions, career changes, retirement, etc. The implication of changing individual incomes is that individual households do not remain in the same income quintiles over time. Thus, comparing different income quintiles over time is like comparing apples to oranges, because it means comparing incomes of different people at different stages in their earnings profile.

The U.S. Treasury released a study in November 2007 that examined income mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005. Using data from individual tax returns, the study documented the movement of households along the distribution of real income over the 10-year period. As shown in Figure 1A, the study found that nearly 58 percent of the households that were in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20 percent) in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Similarly, nearly 50 percent of the households in the second-lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income quintile by 2005. Even a significant number of households in the third- and fourth-lowest income quintiles in 1996 moved to a higher quintile in 2005.

The Treasury study also documented falls in household income between 1996 and 2005. This is most interesting when considering the richest households. As shown in Figure 1B, more than 57 percent of the richest 1 percent of households in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005. Similarly, more than 45 percent of the households that ranked in the top 5 percent of income in 1996 fell out of that category by 2005.

Thus it is clear that over time, a significant number of households move to higher positions along the income distribution, and a significant number move to lower positions along the income distribution. Common reference to “classes” of people (e.g., the lowest 20 percent or the richest 10 percent) is quite misleading because income classes do not contain the same households and people over time.

Another problem with drawing inferences from the census statistics is that the statistics do not include the noncash resources received by lower-income households—resources transferred to the households—and the tax payments made by wealthier households to fund these transfers. Lower-income households annually receive tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and medical care. None of these are considered income by the Census Bureau. Thus the resources available to lower-income households are actually greater than is suggested by the income of those households as reported in the census data.

At the same time, these noncash payments to lower-income households are funded with taxpayer dollars—mostly from wealthier households, since they pay a majority of overall taxes. One research report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest income quintile increases roughly 50 percent—whereas the share of total income earned by the highest income quintile drops roughly 7 percent—when transfer payments and taxes are considered.

The census statistics also do not account for the fact that the households in each quintile contain different numbers of people; it is differences in income across people, rather than differences in income by household, that provide a clearer measure of inequality. Lower-income households tend to consist of single people with low earnings, whereas higher-income households tend to include married couples with multiple earners. The fact that lower-income households have fewer people than higher-income households skews the income distribution by person. When considering household size along with transfers received and taxes paid, the income share of the lowest quintile nearly triples and the income share of the highest quintile falls by 25 percent.

Is Policy Needed?
Income inequality will still exist even if the income inequality statistics are adjusted to account for the aforementioned factors. Given the negative attention income inequality receives in the media, it is important to ask whether reducing income inequality is a worthy goal of public policy. It is important to understand that income inequality is a byproduct of a well-functioning capitalist economy. Individuals’ earnings are directly related to their productivity. Wealthy people are not wealthy because they have more money; it is because they have greater productivity. Different incomes reflect different productivity levels.

The unconstrained opportunity for individuals to create value for society—and the fact that their income reflects the value they create—encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. Economic research has documented a positive correlation between entrepreneurship/innovation and overall economic growth. A wary eye should be cast on policies that aim to shrink the income distribution by redistributing income from the more productive to the less productive simply for the sake of “fairness.” Redistribution of wealth increases the costs of entrepreneurship and innovation, with the result being lower overall economic growth for everyone.

Poverty and income inequality are related, but only the former deserves a policy-based response. Sound economic policy to reduce poverty would lift people out of poverty (increase their productivity) while not reducing the well-being of wealthier individuals. Tools to implement such a policy include investments in education and job training.

Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.

 Desubot wrote:


Its still not what im saying at all. and your not even answering the question.
how much money does it take to send a child in a dire situation to go through school.
of that now many dire children are out there? because if you let one go you have to let all of them go to school.
of that total amount that it requires how many people are eligible to be taxed for it (middle class? rich? supper rich)?

if its a reasonable amount that allows them to also pay for there own children to go to school then who cares, its all good. otherwise we have a problem.
that plus you have to also add in other social programs that are exactly the same. (food stamps and such)

now suddenly some of these middle class people WILL start dropping into lower middle class and that is dropping down a totem pole. this is not the case currently because we are just borrowing money from china to sustain these programs and thats putting us in dept.

i would love to see some one answer the actual question.

Fafnir wrote:Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies (rhetorical, I know why, but the reason is still unreasonable). Much of our society is built upon socialist policies, many of the institutions we rely on every single day.
It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms, nor is it about going full communist. We give some of our responsibility to the state so that we can focus on what's really important.

For example, up here in Canada, with healthcare covered by our basic taxes, I never have to worry about getting sick or injured. I can focus more on what I really want to do with my life and my funds that I do have after my taxes, even if they may be higher than in America. If I were to get in an accident that interfered with my ability to do my work, I know that, even if I may have to wait in line a little longer, I'll get the service I need.
I feel that we can make a similar concession for things like education. I never intend on having children (I absolutely hate the little sociopaths), but I believe that regardless of that, everyone deserves the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their lives, and coming from a poor family should not exclude them from that. Sure, my taxes may not go to pay for my children (especially assuming I never have any, as I intend), but at the end of the road, it'll be worth it when the educated people are there to support the economy and medical care that I rely on in my old age, even if they aren't my direct descendents.

 Frank&Stein wrote:


The question you should be asking is why are so many children in such a dire situation in the first place!

 Fafnir wrote:
Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies (rhetorical, I know why, but the reason is still unreasonable). Much of our society is built upon socialist policies, many of the institutions we rely on every single day.
It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms, nor is it about going full communist. We give some of our responsibility to the state so that we can focus on what's really important.

For example, up here in Canada, with healthcare covered by our basic taxes, I never have to worry about getting sick or injured. I can focus more on what I really want to do with my life and my funds that I do have after my taxes, even if they may be higher than in America. If I were to get in an accident that interfered with my ability to do my work, I know that, even if I may have to wait in line a little longer, I'll get the service I need.
I feel that we can make a similar concession for things like education. I never intend on having children (I absolutely hate the little sociopaths), but I believe that regardless of that, everyone deserves the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their lives, and coming from a poor family should not exclude them from that. Sure, my taxes may not go to pay for my children (especially assuming I never have any, as I intend), but at the end of the road, it'll be worth it when the educated people are there to support the economy and medical care that I rely on in my old age, even if they aren't my direct descendents.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's "normal"?

Chongara wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's "normal"?

America.

 Fafnir wrote:
Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies...It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
How? How is free healthcare giving up personal freedom?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
No, but it's free at the point of consumption. It's a great way to weaken insurance companies, if that is what you want.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
So if someone had a massive car accident and needed a lot of surgery in order to save his life, yet this someone worked as a janitor in a high school and therefore couldn't afford it, he shouldn't get it? With socialised medicine he could still live, without it he'd need to have health insurance and then await the insurance company's response.

 Ratbarf wrote:


I honestly don't know the details of how his taxes are broken down, only what he tells me.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:


I honestly don't know the details of how his taxes are broken down, only what he tells me.

Then I can only tell you that he doesn't pay 55% of fed taxes alone. You live in Ontario, right? That would make an expected total amount of taxes (local, provincial and federal) around 70 to 75% of income, which is completely, entirely impossible.

More than likely, he pays 55% total taxes.

 Fafnir wrote:
Honestly, I don't know why, in this day and age, people are so unreasonably scared of socialist policies...It's not a matter of giving up personal freedoms

 djones520 wrote:


That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


That's about what my father pays, the 55% part. Except he's not a Canadian citizen, so he doesn't get to reap the benefits of what he pays, like the medical insurance. As soon as his work permit expires, he's moving back to the states.

There are ways to get it in returns if he gets a citizenship. I know a few French peeps that went from ass-broke to fething rich overnight.