25%? Same for $12k a year as $1.2mln a year? Capital gains? No write offs for real estate? Company med plans taxed?
No didn't read article want to know what y'all think.
How bout consumption tax. More you buy more you pay more. Kill economy for a while but.....
A consumption tax should be the way to go, no? Repeal the 16th amendment and pay taxes on what you purchase. As long as there is a cap that can't be raised. But this will never gain ground anywhere. Nobody would vote to repeal income taxes. We must be crazy.
25%? Same for $12k a year as $1.2mln a year? Capital gains? No write offs for real estate? Company med plans taxed?
No didn't read article want to know what y'all think.
How bout consumption tax. More you buy more you pay more. Kill economy for a while but.....
A consumption tax should be the way to go, no? Repeal the 16th amendment and pay taxes on what you purchase. As long as there is a cap that can't be raised. But this will never gain ground anywhere. Nobody would vote to repeal income taxes. We must be crazy.
What about the fact that a consumption tax hits lower income families exponentially harder?
The way you handle this is by making certain life staples/necessities tax exempt i.e. Groceries, meds etc. Beyond the basics even lower income families should be required to contribute when they spend on non-essential items.
I'm down with that, as long as capital investments get taxed.
At same rate?
How the rich get paid. Need to tax though I hate it.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
Fuckin eh! Add taxes to that! It is literally retarding our students to shove higher level math down their throat at the expense of basic life maths.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
I think the US needs to adopt a strategy like that, it sounds like it's exactly what we need.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
I think the US needs to adopt a strategy like that, it sounds like it's exactly what we need.
Echoes my thoughts to a tee (T?). I rolled into basic math pretty easily from the get-go, and remember my dad going with me to the bank at I don't even remember how young I was, to open a savings account. Taught me how to track deposits, withdrawals - not to mention earning the money itself.
Many good lessons - not to mention bonding experiences - in that time.
Before we changed to a flat tax, my province had below average income inequality. Since it's implementation, our inequality has become the highest in the country. And our provincial taxes are only a portion of our total tax burden. If it was a national flat tax, I'm sure the chasm would be even more pronounced. For the most part, the middle class carried the cost of tax breaks for the rich (surprise surprise), but government revenue still decreased. General rule of thumb - if a politician is supporting any change to tax structures, you better dig a lot deeper than their word. We know they are beholden to people in higher tax brackets than most of us.
When someone brings up income inequality I never know whether they are advocating for poor people to earn more or rich people to earn less. The term really make no sense and is really just used to mask marxist redistributive intent. The government's goal shouldn't be to make incomes more equal but instead to just help lower income people earn more. That should be the purpose of tax policy. Making rich people earn less helps no one and redistributing wealth might fund social programs but it will certainly not increase anyone's income. You can't hit job creators and then expect them to create better paying jobs. You also can't have a liberal immigration policy without causing a decrease in wages at the low end of the scale...basic supply and demand.
When someone brings up income inequality I never know whether they are advocating for poor people to earn more or rich people to earn less. The term really make no sense and is really just used to mask marxist redistributive intent. The government's goal shouldn't be to make incomes more equal but instead to just help lower income people earn more. That should be the purpose of tax policy. Making rich people earn less helps no one and redistributing wealth might fund social programs but it will certainly not increase anyone's income. You can't hit job creators and then expect them to create better paying jobs.
Calling me a commie now? lol...and promoting trickle down economics. so oldschool, and so wrong. So let me guess....you're going to just make more wealth appear out of thin air in order to 'help lower income people earn more'? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world - there has to be redistribution for the poor's situation to improve. Yes, central banks create wealth from nothing....but since that has begun in earnest, inequality has spiked. If you don't recognize that the middle class has been decimated over the past few decades, and the top of the pyramid has gotten fat on their backs, with the poorest left in the cold, then I guess you don't know how to read a simple graph....or maybe you dismiss them with tinfoil comments. That wouldnt' surprise me either.
When someone brings up income inequality I never know whether they are advocating for poor people to earn more or rich people to earn less. The term really make no sense and is really just used to mask marxist redistributive intent. The government's goal shouldn't be to make incomes more equal but instead to just help lower income people earn more. That should be the purpose of tax policy. Making rich people earn less helps no one and redistributing wealth might fund social programs but it will certainly not increase anyone's income. You can't hit job creators and then expect them to create better paying jobs.
Calling me a commie now? lol...and promoting trickle down economics. so oldschool, and so wrong. So let me guess....you're going to just make more wealth appear out of thin air in order to 'help lower income people earn more'? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world - there has to be redistribution for the poor's situation to improve. Yes, central banks create wealth from nothing....but since that has begun in earnest, inequality has spiked. If you don't recognize that the middle class has been decimated over the past few decades, and the top of the pyramid has gotten fat on their backs, with the poorest left in the cold, then I guess you don't know how to read a simple graph....or maybe you dismiss them with tinfoil comments. That wouldnt' surprise me either.
You also can't have a liberal immigration policy without causing a decrease in wages at the low end of the scale...basic supply and demand.
Genuinely confused by this. You're saying that because people come to wealthy nations as poor immigrants, they should have to stay that way?
Not calling you a commie per se....I don't even know you really...but just the concept of income inequality to some extent. I am also not for zero redistribution....I am happy to pay taxes and pay a lot of them once you combine Federal and Ontario taxes. The problem is that the attack on the high earners is constant. Taxes in Ontario are huge and no level of taxation will ever support the massive spending of our province. At some point there is a law of diminishing returns...Ontario is a "have-not" province now! Again if the goal is about helping the poor we need to figure out how to get them a better living wage without completely relying on the wealthy every step of the way...at some point this starts causing more harm then good. I also don't agree with the idea that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. I put myself through school by taking on a lot of debt...I started my own business that now employs people and pays a good wage...I pay taxes...I pay my debt with interest...I spend on things such as countless pearl jam tours...I have single handedly created wealth that did not exist.
As far as immigration...I am for a liberal immigration policy. I guess though I am speaking more to the states where the legalization/normalization of undocumented workers is being discussed. It is just a fact that legalizing these workers (which I am for but it's not my country so easy for me to say) will increase the size of the labour pool. When you increase the size of the labour pool you hurt the lowest income workers by generally depressing wages. This will increase income inequality for sure.
Edit - I should add that some of my employees are very recent immigrants who I value very much. There is no doubt though that the competition in their field is much greater with a liberal immigration policy. I pay them a good wage because I value them but in the general industry..."what others are paying"...is lower then what is historical due to the increase in competition.
When someone brings up income inequality I never know whether they are advocating for poor people to earn more or rich people to earn less. The term really make no sense and is really just used to mask marxist redistributive intent. The government's goal shouldn't be to make incomes more equal but instead to just help lower income people earn more. That should be the purpose of tax policy. Making rich people earn less helps no one and redistributing wealth might fund social programs but it will certainly not increase anyone's income. You can't hit job creators and then expect them to create better paying jobs.
Calling me a commie now? lol...and promoting trickle down economics. so oldschool, and so wrong. So let me guess....you're going to just make more wealth appear out of thin air in order to 'help lower income people earn more'? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world - there has to be redistribution for the poor's situation to improve. Yes, central banks create wealth from nothing....but since that has begun in earnest, inequality has spiked. If you don't recognize that the middle class has been decimated over the past few decades, and the top of the pyramid has gotten fat on their backs, with the poorest left in the cold, then I guess you don't know how to read a simple graph....or maybe you dismiss them with tinfoil comments. That wouldnt' surprise me either.
You also can't have a liberal immigration policy without causing a decrease in wages at the low end of the scale...basic supply and demand.
Genuinely confused by this. You're saying that because people come to wealthy nations as poor immigrants, they should have to stay that way?
Not calling you a commie per se....I don't even know you really...but just the concept of income inequality to some extent. I am also not for zero redistribution....I am happy to pay taxes and pay a lot of them once you combine Federal and Ontario taxes. The problem is that the attack on the high earners is constant. Taxes in Ontario are huge and no level of taxation will ever support the massive spending of our province. At some point there is a law of diminishing returns...Ontario is a "have-not" province now! Again if the goal is about helping the poor we need to figure out how to get them a better living wage without completely relying on the wealthy every step of the way...at some point this starts causing more harm then good. I also don't agree with the idea that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. I put myself through school by taking on a lot of debt...I started my own business that now employs people and pays a good wage...I pay taxes...I pay my debt with interest...I spend on things such as countless pearl jam tours...I have single handedly created wealth that did not exist.
As far as immigration...I am for a liberal immigration policy. I guess though I am speaking more to the states where the legalization/normalization of undocumented workers is being discussed. It is just a fact that legalizing these workers (which I am for but it's not my country so easy for me to say) will increase the size of the labour pool. When you increase the size of the labour pool you hurt the lowest income workers by generally depressing wages. This will increase income inequality for sure.
Edit - I should add that some of my employees are very recent immigrants who I value very much. There is no doubt though that the competition in their field is much greater with a liberal immigration policy. I pay them a good wage because I value them but in the general industry..."what others are paying"...is lower then what is historical due to the increase in competition.
Youre missing my point re: finite wealth and wealth creation...confusing wealth creation with success. There is a set money supply in the world. You are not creating wealth in your business; you are redistributing it. I don't know your industry, but if you're employing recent immigrants, you're likely distributing wealth from the middle class to people who are closer to the poverty line...and to yourself. I don't blame you for paying the lowest wages you can get away with without incurring unmanageable turnover - that's the nature of capitalism....and imo one of the main problems with it. Still, your business is not the real problem....you could keep a hugely disproportionate percentage of your profit, and screw the little guy every chance you get, and still not be the real problem (tho you'd be unworthy of respect, imo)....The problem is the top 1%. This is not some occupy hashtag, there is a reason that number is always referenced. Their wealth is unimaginable to the people who for some reason think they're an ideal to strive for. The wealth retained at the top 1% has nothing to do with small businesses staying competitive...it has everything to do with an economic structure that requires constant growth and a political structure that allows 1% of the people to buy the entire system in order to change it to their benefit. Those are the people who stand to lose the least from a flat tax - with people like you and I (I assume) - the upper middle class, benefiting just enough to support it...and the poor getting fucked over. But...I haven't read the article and don't know what kind of proposal we're looking at. All I know is that if this is seen as a job-creation, 'economic stimulus' proposal, I guarantee it's full of shit. Again, trickle down economics...which has been a proven failure. I believe the numbers that I saw regarding alberta put the break even line around 75k/yr - if you made more, your taxes went down 4%. If you made less, they went up 4%. But really....once you get much higher than the 75k figure, you start finding ways to save more on taxes. There are no such savings for someone earning poverty level wages. If they found a way to save 5%, that would put an extra $1500/yr in their pockets or whatever. whoop-dee-doo. The real question here is....does a bank CEO, even if he really DID bust his ass his entire life, deserve to make 800 times more than the bank tellers his company employs? Or 250 times more than you, a guy who also busted his ass his entire life? One last, important point: most of those bank CEO's, making 20mil/yr, if they're self-made, are on the low end of the 1%.
When someone brings up income inequality I never know whether they are advocating for poor people to earn more or rich people to earn less. The term really make no sense and is really just used to mask marxist redistributive intent. The government's goal shouldn't be to make incomes more equal but instead to just help lower income people earn more. That should be the purpose of tax policy. Making rich people earn less helps no one and redistributing wealth might fund social programs but it will certainly not increase anyone's income. You can't hit job creators and then expect them to create better paying jobs.
Calling me a commie now? lol...and promoting trickle down economics. so oldschool, and so wrong. So let me guess....you're going to just make more wealth appear out of thin air in order to 'help lower income people earn more'? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world - there has to be redistribution for the poor's situation to improve. Yes, central banks create wealth from nothing....but since that has begun in earnest, inequality has spiked. If you don't recognize that the middle class has been decimated over the past few decades, and the top of the pyramid has gotten fat on their backs, with the poorest left in the cold, then I guess you don't know how to read a simple graph....or maybe you dismiss them with tinfoil comments. That wouldnt' surprise me either.
You also can't have a liberal immigration policy without causing a decrease in wages at the low end of the scale...basic supply and demand.
Genuinely confused by this. You're saying that because people come to wealthy nations as poor immigrants, they should have to stay that way?
Not calling you a commie per se....I don't even know you really...but just the concept of income inequality to some extent. I am also not for zero redistribution....I am happy to pay taxes and pay a lot of them once you combine Federal and Ontario taxes. The problem is that the attack on the high earners is constant. Taxes in Ontario are huge and no level of taxation will ever support the massive spending of our province. At some point there is a law of diminishing returns...Ontario is a "have-not" province now! Again if the goal is about helping the poor we need to figure out how to get them a better living wage without completely relying on the wealthy every step of the way...at some point this starts causing more harm then good. I also don't agree with the idea that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. I put myself through school by taking on a lot of debt...I started my own business that now employs people and pays a good wage...I pay taxes...I pay my debt with interest...I spend on things such as countless pearl jam tours...I have single handedly created wealth that did not exist.
As far as immigration...I am for a liberal immigration policy. I guess though I am speaking more to the states where the legalization/normalization of undocumented workers is being discussed. It is just a fact that legalizing these workers (which I am for but it's not my country so easy for me to say) will increase the size of the labour pool. When you increase the size of the labour pool you hurt the lowest income workers by generally depressing wages. This will increase income inequality for sure.
Edit - I should add that some of my employees are very recent immigrants who I value very much. There is no doubt though that the competition in their field is much greater with a liberal immigration policy. I pay them a good wage because I value them but in the general industry..."what others are paying"...is lower then what is historical due to the increase in competition.
Youre missing my point re: finite wealth and wealth creation...confusing wealth creation with success. There is a set money supply in the world. You are not creating wealth in your business; you are redistributing it. I don't know your industry, but if you're employing recent immigrants, you're likely distributing wealth from the middle class to people who are closer to the poverty line...and to yourself. I don't blame you for paying the lowest wages you can get away with without incurring unmanageable turnover - that's the nature of capitalism....and imo one of the main problems with it. Still, your business is not the real problem....you could keep a hugely disproportionate percentage of your profit, and screw the little guy every chance you get, and still not be the real problem (tho you'd be unworthy of respect, imo)....The problem is the top 1%. This is not some occupy hashtag, there is a reason that number is always referenced. Their wealth is unimaginable to the people who for some reason think they're an ideal to strive for. The wealth retained at the top 1% has nothing to do with small businesses staying competitive...it has everything to do with an economic structure that requires constant growth and a political structure that allows 1% of the people to buy the entire system in order to change it to their benefit. Those are the people who stand to lose the least from a flat tax - with people like you and I (I assume) - the upper middle class, benefiting just enough to support it...and the poor getting fucked over. But...I haven't read the article and don't know what kind of proposal we're looking at. All I know is that if this is seen as a job-creation, 'economic stimulus' proposal, I guarantee it's full of shit. Again, trickle down economics...which has been a proven failure. I believe the numbers that I saw regarding alberta put the break even line around 75k/yr - if you made more, your taxes went down 4%. If you made less, they went up 4%. But really....once you get much higher than the 75k figure, you start finding ways to save more on taxes. There are no such savings for someone earning poverty level wages. If they found a way to save 5%, that would put an extra $1500/yr in their pockets or whatever. whoop-dee-doo. The real question here is....does a bank CEO, even if he really DID bust his ass his entire life, deserve to make 800 times more than the bank tellers his company employs? Or 250 times more than you, a guy who also busted his ass his entire life? One last, important point: most of those bank CEO's, making 20mil/yr, if they're self-made, are on the low end of the 1%.
I don't know if a customer willingly paying me for a service is a redistribution wealth from them to me but I guess I can't completely argue with the concept. As far as "the top 1%" is concerned though...In Canada you need to make $191,000.00 to be considered a part of the top 1%. That is certainly a large and comfortable number that no one should complain about but depending on where you live I wouldn't call that excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Property values and total cost of living in the City of Toronto is through the roof right now so once you give away half that number away in taxes you are certainly not bathing in obscene wealth. So using the blanket number of 1% to make policy does not really make all that sense especially if you take regional differences into account. At that salary you are hitting a lot more small businesses then you are bank CEO's which really fall into the top 0.01%.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
I think the US needs to adopt a strategy like that, it sounds like it's exactly what we need.
Drowned and BS.Nice convo.Very interesting.I see both points fairly clear.I believe I align with the thought that the Robin Hood principle of taking a greater percentage from the rich for wealth redistribution to the poor is not a smart or just plan of action.The more we cherry pick from the"1%" I think the more we ultimately hurt the middle class.Like it or not the Trickle down affect is real and I think works.(was there more of a middle class during Reagans time in office?) I think so.More income equality anyway. I remember during the ridiculous Occupy movement the masses were calling for some CEO to come out of his Ivory tower.So this CEO did and faced the kids on camera.They were telling him he should pay more in taxes.When he explained to them he already paid close to 45% -50% or some number close to that ,he asked how much more they wanted to take from him?They had no answer and just kept yelling nonsense at a guy who manned up and faced them to answer whatever they wanted.When no one had any better ideas for him he reminded them that the more the take from his company ,the more people who would have to loose employment to offset the loss.Creating more unemployment and these were middle class white collar jobs. That has always stuck with me and I feel it's quit true.
Drowned and BS.Nice convo.Very interesting.I see both points fairly clear.I believe I align with the thought that the Robin Hood principle of taking a greater percentage from the rich for wealth redistribution to the poor is not a smart or just plan of action.The more we cherry pick from the"1%" I think the more we ultimately hurt the middle class.Like it or not the Trickle down affect is real and I think works.(was there more of a middle class during Reagans time in office?) I think so.More income equality anyway. I remember during the ridiculous Occupy movement the masses were calling for some CEO to come out of his Ivory tower.So this CEO did and faced the kids on camera.They were telling him he should pay more in taxes.When he explained to them he already paid close to 45% -50% or some number close to that ,he asked how much more they wanted to take from him?They had no answer and just kept yelling nonsense at a guy who manned up and faced them to answer whatever they wanted.When no one had any better ideas for him he reminded them that the more the take from his company ,the more people who would have to loose employment to offset the loss.Creating more unemployment and these were middle class white collar jobs. That has always stuck with me and I feel it's quit true.
Sorry buddy but trickle down economics doesn't work and never will. Tons of articles on it saying so.
I don't know if a customer willingly paying me for a service is a redistribution wealth from them to me but I guess I can't completely argue with the concept. As far as "the top 1%" is concerned though...In Canada you need to make $191,000.00 to be considered a part of the top 1%. That is certainly a large and comfortable number that no one should complain about but depending on where you live I wouldn't call that excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Property values and total cost of living in the City of Toronto is through the roof right now so once you give away half that number away in taxes you are certainly not bathing in obscene wealth. So using the blanket number of 1% to make policy does not really make all that sense especially if you take regional differences into account. At that salary you are hitting a lot more small businesses then you are bank CEO's which really fall into the top 0.01%.
Ok, maybe hyperbole in saying 20mil/yr puts you at the low end of the 1%, esp in Canada where inequality is significantly less pronounced (but growing and still an issue). I was conflating annual salary with wealth. Not many people, at even 350k / yr income, will end up with more than a few million by retirement. DOctors, lawyers, etc. It's the bankers, stock people who make ridiculous wages and bonuses....and they just so happen to the be people most able to take advantage of loopholes in the system. Coincidentally, the 190k you mention in Canada as putting you in the top 1%, as of 2012, was exactly double in the US - 380k, to be a part of the 1%. Yes, bank CEO's generally ARE part of the .01%. You're right - I didn't put enough thought into that post - it's the crème de la crème that need to contribute a much higher burden - or we at least find a way to eliminate their tax shelters so that they are paying an actual fair percentage of their massive wealth. I'm thinking the billionaire dynasty families in particular. I know the word 'fair' conjures images of hammers and sickles to some, but really....the disproportionate wealth of these people and their influence on politics contributes hugely to the issues we see across the world today. Here is a good scholarly paper on the topic (for you rr)....lots of easily referenced graphs n stats :
Oh, and if you don't want to call your business 'wealth redistribution', call it 'wealth transfer'. It is a voluntary transaction, yes....but that transaction still comes from the same finite (unless you're a central bank) pool of wealth; it isn't creating it.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
This type of class has been around since the 90's....I had to take it in HS. It was called C.A.L.M. - Career And Life Management. And it was a joke to all of us. Basically a forced option/elective/whateveryacallit; our go-to class for skipping or attending buzzed. ya. we were so cool
Drowned and BS.Nice convo.Very interesting.I see both points fairly clear.I believe I align with the thought that the Robin Hood principle of taking a greater percentage from the rich for wealth redistribution to the poor is not a smart or just plan of action.The more we cherry pick from the"1%" I think the more we ultimately hurt the middle class.Like it or not the Trickle down affect is real and I think works.(was there more of a middle class during Reagans time in office?) I think so.More income equality anyway. I remember during the ridiculous Occupy movement the masses were calling for some CEO to come out of his Ivory tower.So this CEO did and faced the kids on camera.They were telling him he should pay more in taxes. When he explained to them he already paid close to 45% -50% or some number close to that ,he asked how much more they wanted to take from him?They had no answer and just kept yelling nonsense at a guy who manned up and faced them to answer whatever they wanted.When no one had any better ideas for him he reminded them that the more the take from his company ,the more people who would have to loose employment to offset the loss.Creating more unemployment and these were middle class white collar jobs. That has always stuck with me and I feel it's quit true.
I sincerely doubt he was telling the truth. Just because the top rate is 45-50%, that doesn't mean he pays it. Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you or I, and that is on the money he didn't hide in foreign tax havens. Do you really think he is in the minority on this?
I don't know if a customer willingly paying me for a service is a redistribution wealth from them to me but I guess I can't completely argue with the concept. As far as "the top 1%" is concerned though...In Canada you need to make $191,000.00 to be considered a part of the top 1%. That is certainly a large and comfortable number that no one should complain about but depending on where you live I wouldn't call that excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Property values and total cost of living in the City of Toronto is through the roof right now so once you give away half that number away in taxes you are certainly not bathing in obscene wealth. So using the blanket number of 1% to make policy does not really make all that sense especially if you take regional differences into account. At that salary you are hitting a lot more small businesses then you are bank CEO's which really fall into the top 0.01%.
Ok, maybe hyperbole in saying 20mil/yr puts you at the low end of the 1%, esp in Canada where inequality is significantly less pronounced (but growing and still an issue). I was conflating annual salary with wealth. Not many people, at even 350k / yr income, will end up with more than a few million by retirement. DOctors, lawyers, etc. It's the bankers, stock people who make ridiculous wages and bonuses....and they just so happen to the be people most able to take advantage of loopholes in the system. Coincidentally, the 190k you mention in Canada as putting you in the top 1%, as of 2012, was exactly double in the US - 380k, to be a part of the 1%. Yes, bank CEO's generally ARE part of the .01%. You're right - I didn't put enough thought into that post - it's the crème de la crème that need to contribute a much higher burden - or we at least find a way to eliminate their tax shelters so that they are paying an actual fair percentage of their massive wealth. I'm thinking the billionaire dynasty families in particular. I know the word 'fair' conjures images of hammers and sickles to some, but really....the disproportionate wealth of these people and their influence on politics contributes hugely to the issues we see across the world today. Here is a good scholarly paper on the topic (for you rr)....lots of easily referenced graphs n stats :
Oh, and if you don't want to call your business 'wealth redistribution', call it 'wealth transfer'. It is a voluntary transaction, yes....but that transaction still comes from the same finite (unless you're a central bank) pool of wealth; it isn't creating it.
I'm glad that you recognize there is a big difference between the 1% and the 0.01%. Here's the problem though...the "1%" was chosen as the targeted group for a reason. The first and more childish reason is that it's a nice easy number for sloganeering...it's like Herman Cain's "9 9 9!". The second and more substantive reason is that the redistributionists recognize that there just aren't enough people and/or money among the 0.01% to fund all their pet projects. The government wants to spend so it figures if it yells "tax the 1%" maybe no one will notice that its really reaching into the pockets of the upper middle class.
before anything is done the (US)GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEARN TO BALLANCE A CHECK BOOK ! and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Not just Washington.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums? Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
The "young ones" I see have more of a clue about taxes and general life skills than I or any of my friends did at a comparable age. In BC "Planning" is a mandatory course at the Grade 10 level and includes a large section on financial management, including taxation as well as budgeting for costs of living on your own, principles of investments, investigating the options for post-secondary education, etc. As well, there are already three streams of Math in high school here - the Pre-calculus/Calculus stream (for those university bound in the sciences or math), Foundations of Math (for those university bound in non-sciences), and Workplace Math (the sort of basic, practical math you are talking about).
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
This type of class has been around since the 90's....I had to take it in HS. It was called C.A.L.M. - Career And Life Management. And it was a joke to all of us. Basically a forced option/elective/whateveryacallit; our go-to class for skipping or attending buzzed. ya. we were so cool
. Maybe my kid of a bit more of a keener but she seemed to get a lot out of it. It was kind of interesting from a parental point of view, too, because there was a lot of information they needed to find out to complete assignments, so one evening it would be "how much do we spend a week in groceries? How do you decide where to shop? Do you use coupons?", and the next evening it would be "how big a mortgage do we have? How much are the monthly payments? Can I look at the utilities bills?". I think it was eye opening for her to see how much these things cost.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
See what your saying but some wealthy pay no taxes. And Many have all these bogus write offs such as religious charities etc. So like idea though I'm a mostly liberal pinko.
Anyone who makes less than $200K a year would absolutely pay more tax under a flat tax. Anyone who makes less than $400K a year and votes republican (the current variation of republican) is voting against their own self interests.
SOme of you in favor need to look at your own tax returns...take line 63 of your 1040 and divide it by line 22. Compare that % to what the flat tax % is that you might favor.
And the comments about getting rid of the IRS? Who will collect this flat tax? That's what the IRS does...collects taxes levied by Congress.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
and use it wisely.
Godfather.
Can we eliminate Math classes like Advanced algebra 2 and trig (For those not pursuing science and engineering based paths) add in a Mandatory basic book keeping,basic investment,money/credit management class to all High school curriculums?
Young ones today have not got a clue unless the parents are on top of it.
However, they're teenagers - not much of this will stick until they need to use it. Just like how we were as teens.
Many good lessons - not to mention bonding experiences - in that time.
For the most part, the middle class carried the cost of tax breaks for the rich (surprise surprise), but government revenue still decreased.
General rule of thumb - if a politician is supporting any change to tax structures, you better dig a lot deeper than their word. We know they are beholden to people in higher tax brackets than most of us.
So let me guess....you're going to just make more wealth appear out of thin air in order to 'help lower income people earn more'? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world - there has to be redistribution for the poor's situation to improve. Yes, central banks create wealth from nothing....but since that has begun in earnest, inequality has spiked. If you don't recognize that the middle class has been decimated over the past few decades, and the top of the pyramid has gotten fat on their backs, with the poorest left in the cold, then I guess you don't know how to read a simple graph....or maybe you dismiss them with tinfoil comments. That wouldnt' surprise me either. Genuinely confused by this. You're saying that because people come to wealthy nations as poor immigrants, they should have to stay that way?
As far as immigration...I am for a liberal immigration policy. I guess though I am speaking more to the states where the legalization/normalization of undocumented workers is being discussed. It is just a fact that legalizing these workers (which I am for but it's not my country so easy for me to say) will increase the size of the labour pool. When you increase the size of the labour pool you hurt the lowest income workers by generally depressing wages. This will increase income inequality for sure.
Edit - I should add that some of my employees are very recent immigrants who I value very much. There is no doubt though that the competition in their field is much greater with a liberal immigration policy. I pay them a good wage because I value them but in the general industry..."what others are paying"...is lower then what is historical due to the increase in competition.
The real question here is....does a bank CEO, even if he really DID bust his ass his entire life, deserve to make 800 times more than the bank tellers his company employs? Or 250 times more than you, a guy who also busted his ass his entire life?
One last, important point: most of those bank CEO's, making 20mil/yr, if they're self-made, are on the low end of the 1%.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321
I remember during the ridiculous Occupy movement the masses were calling for some CEO to come out of his Ivory tower.So this CEO did and faced the kids on camera.They were telling him he should pay more in taxes.When he explained to them he already paid close to 45% -50% or some number close to that ,he asked how much more they wanted to take from him?They had no answer and just kept yelling nonsense at a guy who manned up and faced them to answer whatever they wanted.When no one had any better ideas for him he reminded them that the more the take from his company ,the more people who would have to loose employment to offset the loss.Creating more unemployment and these were middle class white collar jobs.
That has always stuck with me and I feel it's quit true.
Ok, maybe hyperbole in saying 20mil/yr puts you at the low end of the 1%, esp in Canada where inequality is significantly less pronounced (but growing and still an issue). I was conflating annual salary with wealth. Not many people, at even 350k / yr income, will end up with more than a few million by retirement. DOctors, lawyers, etc. It's the bankers, stock people who make ridiculous wages and bonuses....and they just so happen to the be people most able to take advantage of loopholes in the system. Coincidentally, the 190k you mention in Canada as putting you in the top 1%, as of 2012, was exactly double in the US - 380k, to be a part of the 1%. Yes, bank CEO's generally ARE part of the .01%. You're right - I didn't put enough thought into that post - it's the crème de la crème that need to contribute a much higher burden - or we at least find a way to eliminate their tax shelters so that they are paying an actual fair percentage of their massive wealth. I'm thinking the billionaire dynasty families in particular. I know the word 'fair' conjures images of hammers and sickles to some, but really....the disproportionate wealth of these people and their influence on politics contributes hugely to the issues we see across the world today.
Here is a good scholarly paper on the topic (for you rr)....lots of easily referenced graphs n stats :
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Oh, and if you don't want to call your business 'wealth redistribution', call it 'wealth transfer'. It is a voluntary transaction, yes....but that transaction still comes from the same finite (unless you're a central bank) pool of wealth; it isn't creating it.
only in a republican wet dream.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Enough with the boxes already. Some of this is, if seen without the fist-shaking, somewhat reasonable.
A starting point? Or not.
Thoughts on consumption tax?
SOme of you in favor need to look at your own tax returns...take line 63 of your 1040 and divide it by line 22. Compare that % to what the flat tax % is that you might favor.
And the comments about getting rid of the IRS? Who will collect this flat tax? That's what the IRS does...collects taxes levied by Congress.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana