Political Ramblings

[hemet dennis]

So everyones fair share is what ?

We will spend about 3.2 trillion next year and there's about 350 million in this country so that's $9,142 each so would that be everyones fair share ?

Or would it be fair that everyone that earns pays the same percentage of a flat income tax ? If the tax rate is 10% then if you make $20,000 you pay $2,000 and if you make $500,000 a year you would pay $50,000. And a flat tax has no deductions.

 

[Matthew3590]

Yes, let's see that and in its context. I watched the whole programme and didn't hear him say he was 'glad'. The text must be on the CNN website by now.

I posted it already it was his twitter feed.

 

[hemet dennis]

Wasn't it Chris Matthews that said he was happy Sandy hit the east coast of the U.S. ?

 

[mom'sfolly]

A flat tax rate is regressive.

A poor person is spends far more of their income, it goes straight back into the economy, supporting business and workers. US corporate taxes and taxes on high income "earners" are at the some of the lowest rates ever. I still don't understand why money earned through working should be taxed at a higher rate than "unearned" income from investments. Isn't income, income?

The people I know from "socialist" countries like England and Norway have more vacation time, less debt, better security in retirement, more options for travel, better access to university education, and better healthcare. I don't know many average retired Americans who can vacation abroad for weeks at a time; I do know several retired average Brits who can. I know Brits who have to purchase special health insurance to come to this country, and Indians who return to India for heart surgery because the care is cheaper, and in many cases, better.

 

[thaiturkey]

I sincerely hope so. It appalls me to think that some of the people on this site represent the level of education of this country. (Although a good many others relieve my fears. )

It's the same mixed bag of education, paying attention at school and IQ that you would get in any other country.

There's another issue that can be apparent elsewhere too and that's an emotional refusal to see new possibilities. When something isn't working, you should consider changing it. Not even to consider doing so is foolish.

 

[thaiturkey]

According to the wiki article at least, the government essentially resigned right before the Anschluss. If you have a better (on line) source I'd love to read it.

I can't find better than the Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

The general European view is that Austria willingly rolled over for their countryman Hitler and any potential opposition was already dealt with. Austria and Germany have a language and, according to region, culture in common so it's not surprising that they felt an affinity bin the 1930s.

 

[hemet dennis]

A flat tax rate is regressive.

A poor person is spends far more of their income, it goes straight back into the economy, supporting business and workers. US corporate taxes and taxes on high income "earners" are at the some of the lowest rates ever. I still don't understand why money earned through working should be taxed at a higher rate than "unearned" income from investments. Isn't income, income?

The people I know from "socialist" countries like England and Norway have more vacation time, less debt, better security in retirement, more options for travel, better access to university education, and better healthcare. I don't know many average retired Americans who can vacation abroad for weeks at a time; I do know several retired average Brits who can. I know Brits who have to purchase special health insurance to come to this country, and Indians who return to India for heart surgery because the care is cheaper, and in many cases, better.

A flat tax rate is not regressive.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[2][3][4][5][6] "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[7][8] In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.
It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes tend to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability to pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability to pay. The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, in which the average tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[9][10][11][12] In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

 

[thaiturkey]

I posted it already it was his twitter feed.

That was obviously a sarcastic remark! You must have realised that yourself.

 

[hemet dennis]

A flat tax rate is regressive.

A poor person is spends far more of their income, it goes straight back into the economy, supporting business and workers. US corporate taxes and taxes on high income "earners" are at the some of the lowest rates ever. I still don't understand why money earned through working should be taxed at a higher rate than "unearned" income from investments. Isn't income, income?

The people I know from "socialist" countries like England and Norway have more vacation time, less debt, better security in retirement, more options for travel, better access to university education, and better healthcare. I don't know many average retired Americans who can vacation abroad for weeks at a time; I do know several retired average Brits who can. I know Brits who have to purchase special health insurance to come to this country, and Indians who return to India for heart surgery because the care is cheaper, and in many cases, better.

When you go to work for someone is there a risk that you wont be payed might you lose money ? When you invest you are taking a chance you may make money or you could break even or you could lose money. If you lose a million dollars you can only write off $ 3,000 against other income. So not all income is the same income.

 

[thaiturkey]

A flat tax rate is regressive.

A poor person is spends far more of their income, it goes straight back into the economy, supporting business and workers. US corporate taxes and taxes on high income "earners" are at the some of the lowest rates ever. I still don't understand why money earned through working should be taxed at a higher rate than "unearned" income from investments. Isn't income, income?

The people I know from "socialist" countries like England and Norway have more vacation time, less debt, better security in retirement, more options for travel, better access to university education, and better healthcare. I don't know many average retired Americans who can vacation abroad for weeks at a time; I do know several retired average Brits who can. I know Brits who have to purchase special health insurance to come to this country, and Indians who return to India for heart surgery because the care is cheaper, and in many cases, better.

The UK is far from perfect but what you say about personal wealth and the social programme is generally correct. That's not to say the recession has not had its effect.

However, the UK is not Socialist. You can't nowadays even call either of the major political parties either Socialist or Capitalist. The economy is a mixed one and the government of the day must always reflect that. There is both private ownership and State ownership of enterprises. Perhaps the social programme may be regarded as Socialist. Certainly, it was introduced by a Labour government that had strong Socialist inclinations. Whatever the politics, the social programme is the best thing that was done for the people of the UK after WWII when the country was bombed to hell, short of food, homes and jobs and deep in debt.

The social programme was and is paid for by the taxes of working people, other income earners and employers. Without taxes there would be no benefits and without income there would be no taxes. Any suggestion that an advanced welfare state is an opportunity for its citizens to sit on their behinds and do nothing should look at some real examples in the Western world.