Openmind
Well-Known Member
As do most people who have a degree in economics.
Where did you get your degree in economics? At Fox News university or in a Cracker Jack box?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
America: The land of poverty
- Thread starter Stalin
- Start date
As do most people who have a degree in economics.
Where did you get your degree in economics? At Fox News university or in a Cracker Jack box?
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you mean... The ability to use children as a tax write off but only for lower income people?
Unemployment is already 99 weeks, that's 1.9 years, do you think it should be unlimited?
As for the rest...
You believe government should set the price of healthcare, dental care, child care, housing, and all based on means testing so that the less an individual makes the less it costs for them to acquire these goods and services, basically applying a Progressive cost scale. The more you make, you more you have to pay, the less you make, the less you have to pay, is this a correct interpretation of your position?
If that is correct, where is the money necessary to do those things going to come from?
Government should also mandate that employers pay a wage that allows an individual to earn enough to remain out of poverty and that wage should be determined based on the cost of living for the particular area in which the worker lives/works, is this also correct?
If so, where is that money going to come from?
Union Labor... What rights, if any, do you believe a business owner should have?
As for taxes... Corporations don't pay taxes, the consumer pays any taxes that are levied against a corporation. Additionally, companies that have income from overseas have to pay tax on that income from the country where it was earned, you think we should tax them again on that income? A penalty tax for laying off workers... who is to determine what a corporation "needs" and whether such layoffs are warranted, government?
Capital Gains... If you have a 401k, where did that money come from? Did you pay income tax on that money?
You didn't say anything about taxes on the wealthy which leads me to think you agree as is... Who is "wealthy" and what % of their income should they be forced to pay before you think it's "fair"?
As do most people who have a degree in economics.
Where did you get your degree in economics? At Fox News university or in a Cracker Jack box?
ok demonstrate it in practice with the recent "stimulus". theory is fun but reality is another matter.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
No, obviously there is a child deduction on income tax. But there is also a child benefit which consists in a monthly payment of about $100 for the first child, then I think it goes down a little for each more child. Twice a year, that payment is doubled (to help with sending kids to summer camps, and to help with the back to school expenses). Currently, it is not means tested, everyone gets it. . .but I believe this is or one of the cuts that will occur, and it will become means tested (I know that is the plan that was discussed in England's austerity measure).
It is CURRENTLY at 99 weeks. . .because Obama fought for it! And what are those people suppose to do after the 99 weeks? In time of HIGH unemployment, it shoudl be extended much longer. Belgium goes too far in the other direction. . .there is no limit. People can potentially stay on unemployment for 20 years. . .and they get "vacation pay" and then retirement. . .This is excessive in my opinion. The government also provides a sort of "clearing center" for people who are unemployed and still want to make a little extra money through occasional work. This helps keep a lot of elderly people in their home, because they basically pay half the minimum wage to get domestic help from that pool of unemployed people, and the government pays the other half. . .but it is only for about 10 hours per week per unemployed person.
Not quite. I believe that it is healthy that a government offers a non-profit option for health care but still allows private health care to compete. It is working very well in Belgium. I just checked on this a year ago (when I was visiting my family, I went for information in one of the for profit insurance company --- called "mutuelle" to see what the cost of insurance would be. A year ago, there were three levels of coverage, based on income. The lower level was basically free, the middle level cost about $200 a month for a couple, and the higher level --- for income above $85,000 --- was about $300 a month for a couple). In the other hand, if you want a private room in a hospital, you will have to pay a co-payment (about $50.00 per day) IF a private room is not needed for your condition. Otherwise, most rooms are 2 or 3 beds.
Taxes are obviously higher (top level is about 45 %. . .but it differs by country), but people are actually complaining LESS than in the US about taxes because people do realize they get a LOT MORE from their taxes (including very good infrastructure)
If so, where is that money going to come from?
I believe that slave labor, or working just to get enough to barely survive, when a father had to take a child out of school to send them to work in a factory in order to have just enough food for the family not to starve is a stage of development for a civilisation that, as a "wealthy," developped country we should have outgrown a long time ago (I thought we had. . .and it didn't hurt us under Clinton, did it?). The time of Sinclair's "The Jungle" should be gone for ever, but apparently you believe that these were the "good old days?
Santa Cruz, California passed a "living wage" law about 10 years ago for all government workers, and obviously, private industry followed. That area, as well as Silicone Valley has not suffered from this. Money comes from LOWER profit, few huge bonuses to CEO, and local taxes.
Labor laws should cover both the workers and the owners, and should be sensitive to the SIZE of the business. Obviously, a small business shouldn't have as many constraints as a large corporation.
Prior to the existence of Unions, the business owners had ALL the rights. . .and many excess were reported. Unions have changed the playing field, and if unions are outlaws, it takes away "bargaining power" from EVERYONE, not just the unionized workers. Toyota has been successful at keeping union out BECAUSE THEY TREAT THEIR WORKERS AS WELL OR BETTER than unionized shops. . .but if union disappear, how long will it be, especially in this high unemployment period, before workes suffer?
By the way, don't talk to me about union affecting our chances to "compete in the global economy," once again, unions do exist in Europe as well, AND the labor laws in Europe (especially Germany) are much more stringent than in the US. Still, Germany in particular is doing much better than we are in the global labor market competition!
As for taxes... Corporations don't pay taxes, the consumer pays any taxes that are levied against a corporation. Additionally, companies that have income from overseas have to pay tax on that income from the country where it was earned, you think we should tax them again on that income? A penalty tax for laying off workers... who is to determine what a corporation "needs" and whether such layoffs are warranted, government?
That is such a bunch of bull! YOU of all people seem to be a big partisan of "free market!" If corporations were taxed, and then tried to pass the totality of those taxes on their customers, the price of their products would increase, and it may work for some "low elasticity" items like NECESSITY items (like food), but certainly not on many of the luxury or "fun" items, and not on luxury cars. . .because those items are NOT a necessity.
Corporations pay taxes in foreign countries. . .except when they make "special deals." Also, isn't the argument against raising taxes here that, if we did, more corporations would go abroad to take advantage of more advantageous tax schedules in other countries?
Well, private citizens living abroad KNOW that they get an annual deductions for living abroad and paying taxes in other countries. . .but IF their income is greater than a certain amount (it has been too long since we did this, so I don't know what that expatriate amount is today), they pay tax to the US. . .they just don't pay DOUBLE tax, but they do pay tax in the US also.
Why couldn't corporation pay the same thing. . .whatever the difference is between the taxes they would pay if their manufacturing was in the US, and what they pay to the "host" country, they should have to pay to the US. . .plus a "penalty" for taking the jobs oversea.
It wouldn't be a 401K if I had paid tax on it, now would it?
But while I didn't pay tax on that money then, I pay tax on it when I withdraw it now. . .and I didn't have access to it in the mean time. . OR I had to pay not only taxes but also a penalty. . .what's your point?
I absolutely think that there should be a higher level of tax paid for NET income over $1 million a year, and another MUCH HIGHER level of tax paid on income over $10 million a year. Still, those people would pay the lower level taxes on income below those two "paliers." (as it is today!)
Now, why do I have the feeling that you are only asking those questions not because you are really interested in my opinion or personal expericence with other forms of taxations and other systems, but because you would be VERY HAPPY to find a "I got you," moment, or ammunition to pursue your little friends campaign of belittleling and ridiculing me?
The thing is. . . I don't really care what your little friends thing of me or of my opinions. So. . .do with this as you please!
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Just in case you are really interested in the "child benefit" (Allocation familiale in French), I found the current amount of child benefit in Belgium.
Pour le premier enfant : 86,77 EUR (for the first child, about $110)
Pour le deuxième enfant : 160,55 EUR (for the second child, about $200)
Pour chaque enfant à partir du troisième : 239,72 EUR (for the third child, about $300).
Adopted children also receive this assistance, and children of gay couples are also eligible.
"Children" living at home and still in school are eligible to receive this payment up to the age of 25 years old. After 16 years old, the payment can be made directly to the child, instead of the parents
The "double payment" twice a year has been changed. There is now only ONE additional payment in August (still to assist the family with the going back to school expenses) that is "only" about $100.00.
There is also a one time "prime de naissance" (or birth allowance) which consist of about $1,600 for the first child, and about $1,200 for every child after that.
I must say that I think it is a little excessive in my opinion, and that this would be a great area of spending cuts, just by adding a "means testing" criteria, and reducing the age of continued eligibility to 18 or 21.
But. . .it sure helps to keep the economy going and to keep children from going hungry!
Pour le premier enfant : 86,77 EUR (for the first child, about $110)
Pour le deuxième enfant : 160,55 EUR (for the second child, about $200)
Pour chaque enfant à partir du troisième : 239,72 EUR (for the third child, about $300).
Adopted children also receive this assistance, and children of gay couples are also eligible.
"Children" living at home and still in school are eligible to receive this payment up to the age of 25 years old. After 16 years old, the payment can be made directly to the child, instead of the parents
The "double payment" twice a year has been changed. There is now only ONE additional payment in August (still to assist the family with the going back to school expenses) that is "only" about $100.00.
There is also a one time "prime de naissance" (or birth allowance) which consist of about $1,600 for the first child, and about $1,200 for every child after that.
I must say that I think it is a little excessive in my opinion, and that this would be a great area of spending cuts, just by adding a "means testing" criteria, and reducing the age of continued eligibility to 18 or 21.
But. . .it sure helps to keep the economy going and to keep children from going hungry!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Yeah...if only we could go back to the good old days of the USSR under the murdering scumbag mommas boy Joey Stalin. Oh...those were such wonderful days....
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I am vaguely aware of such a child benefit being paid to people on Welfare, I don't know specifics, but I'm pretty sure it exists here in the US. Thanks for posting the info about the child benefit program in Belgium.
So you think 99 weeks is not long enough while 20 years is too long... This means you think the length should fall somewhere in between those two time frames. Since I don't know what time frame you think is adequate, I'll call it X. Now, answer your own question... What are those people supposed to do after they have been on unemployment for X amount of time and are no longer able to collect?
Besides the US post office, where in the US constitution is the federal government granted authority to compete with private industry?
Belgium does operate under the US Constitution.
Even with higher taxes, those countries still run yearly deficits and rack up debt. You have to realize that at some point, a system funded by debt is unsustainable.
It wasn't as voluntary as you make it out, the city passed an ordinance and the private sector had to comply.
Higher prices on goods and services as well as higher taxes.
In every case I can think of, the rights of the business owner are obliterated. Decision about the operation of his business is handed over to either government and/or the union.
Why shouldn't they?
I agree, for the most part, but I consider that a failure of government to perform it's proper function of protecting the rights of the individual.
Who is talking about banning unions? Placing limitation on the power of public sector unions is not an attack on public sector unions and it's also not a ban on public sector unions.
Since nobody is talking about banning unions, this is purely political rhetoric.
I used to work with a guy who went to work for Ford, after about 2 years he was laid off. Thanks to the union, he was able to still collect 2/3 of his salary by participating in a "job pool". He still had to go to work everyday but he sat in a break room with his other buddies playing cards, watching cable tv, and generally screwing around - doing nothing productive for the company.
Every once in a while, someone would come in looking for volunteers to do some menial labor, like mopping a shop floor, he had the right to refuse to do anything, so he did nothing. For 2 years he hung out with his friends in the break room, collecting 2/3 of his salary, and when his 2 years in the "job pool" were up, he went on unemployment whereby he was able to collect a paycheck for staying at home on the couch. He said it was the best 3 years of his life.
A business gets its money from selling goods to consumers. That's where the money comes from to pay taxes. Raise taxes on tobacco and the cost of the product goes up. Raise taxes on "big oil" and the cost of gasoline goes up. That's how business operates, taxes are part of the cost of doing business and whatever that cost is has to be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher costs.
Yes, I'm a Capitalist.
That is exactly what happens. Open or operate your own business and you would see that what I say is true.
Corporate taxes are levied against unspent profits, this encourages companies to get rid of any money that's left over after covering their expenses by doing things like offering huge end of the year bonuses rather than being punished with a tax for putting that money into savings. Other taxes, such as royalty payments and property taxes, are on the front end and it's these taxes which add to the cost of products and services.
Where have I made that argument?
I think you misunderstood what I meant by double taxation... Lets say you earn $100,000 working overseas and that country charges you 33% in taxes, you pay $33,333 in taxes. If you also get taxed, at say 17%, in the US on that same $100,000, you would pay an additional $17,000, you would be taxed twice on the same income. Paying tax on money that's already been taxed is double taxation.
As the example of Delta showed, often outsourcing jobs overseas results in more jobs being created in the US... You think business should be punished for creating jobs? Also, far more jobs are lost as a result of technology than outsourcing. For example, an assembly line that used 1000 workers becomes automated and now needs only 100 workers. Should we also make business pay a "penalty" for eliminating those US jobs?
The point is, you seem to think all investments follow that model of being a pre-tax investment but they don't. Investments, such as the purchase of stocks/bonds on the market, are done with money that's been earned and already taxed. That taxed principle is then used to purchase the investment. Rather than taxing just the interest earned on that principle, you seem to think investors should be taxed twice on their principle investment.
Since higher rates aren't shown to result in revenue being a higher % of GDP, I have to conclude that you wish them to pay higher taxes for some reason other than increasing tax revenue.
Have you ever heard of the trader principle? It's a capitalist thing. If we can learn from each other, then we both profit. Most people seem to be under the impression that all profit is measured in dollar signs and that all profit comes at the expense of someone else. Of course that is just propaganda that's meant to belittle and ridicule Capitalism as well as the people like me who believe in Capitalism.
You shouldn't care what others think of you, I certainly don't. You could take this opportunity to learn more about what Capitalism actually is, and actually stands for, and from someone who is an actual Capitalist. If you indeed have an open mind, I think you would find that Capitalism is much different from what the Anti-Capitalists have told you.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
*EDIT* That's supposed to read: Belgium does not operate under the US Constitution. Sorry for the typo.
And don't forget this is a Keynesian construct. A particularly failed view of economics.
And even the administration gave up on the concept and tried instead to gin up the concept of created OR SAVED jobs as no jobs were creaTED.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Typical right winger... you confuse a total lack of success with failure. As any Keynesian will tell you, it just hasn't worked yet. The problem? We didn't spend enough money AND we didn't spend it fast enough. Once we do spend just the right amount, and in just the right time frame, then the Keynesian economic theory will be shown to be a resounding success!
Phoenix68
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2022
- Messages
- 12,388
.
Let's just call it a typical shot at an oligarchy.
.
It just seems like poverty....every time Republicans occupy The Oval.
Let's just call it a typical shot at an oligarchy.
.
It just seems like poverty....every time Republicans occupy The Oval.
Werbung:
Phoenix68
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2022
- Messages
- 12,388
.
![relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon[2].gif](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/4/4549-581aa3adf5fd8cf2efe03ad431d1514e.jpg?hash=WBqjrfX9jP "relaxing-outside-smiley-emoticon[2].gif")
