Politics

Same. I used to be almost radical conservative but I changed a little more than a year ago once I starting to do more research and reading other's opinions.

You can't compare large countries with plenty of natural resources, huge export revenues and low populations to a country like the USA.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

All I know is that we spend exponentially as it is - if we cut back in a lot of superfluous areas and re-invested in areas which have higher net economic returns then I believe we could manage it effectively. Areas such as healthcare, and college aid would benefit the workforce, and likely increase consumption as well as labor output.

Libertarian politicians in Europe, Australia, etc seem to get this - they understand that healthcare's not a luxury. There's way more of a rational for subsidizing than there is a postal service, or libraries for example. I'd be in favor of cutting that entirely.

Yeah, I definitely want as many opinions as possible from the guy who has no clue how we should pay for anything and doesn't think he has any obligation to trace the effects of taking it.

That statement was made with the pre-supposition that we couldn't pay for it - based on our ability to pay billions or trillions bailing out banks or funding unnecessary wars, I definitely think we could pay for it if we cut back on unnecessary expenditures.

I'm arguing on the pre-supposition that we could pay for it in theory - if someone wants to make a case for why we could not pay for it they're free to do so.

The "where does it come from?" question sounded more like a typical "why should other people have to pay for _" challenge than a serious inquiry to me, so it's not applicable here.

My point was what we consider poverty, not who is living at that level. I am not saying things can't get better, they can. I think we are fighting a battle that is mostly over stated is all. I have worked in management for a lot of years. The same people who complain to me about the taxes in this country are the same ones who come running for their W-2's Jan. 1. Why? Because they don't pay any taxes despite their misconceptions. Then they point at the 1% and say pay your share. They are, and yours for that matter. Just like a lot of things, there is absolutely no perspective when it comes to this argument. Just rhetoric.

__________________
Letterboxd

Sorry for this by the way everyone. I got my panties in a wad over one statement about health care and started a politi-war.

This.

I'm open to voting for any far Right/Left WOO groups though as long as they make me laugh like the American guy with the boot on his head, because seriously whats the point anymore?

I'm curious what you mean by this, because this doesn't seem accurate.

If you mean that they pay more total money than most single individuals, probably. If you mean they exist in a higher tax bracket, that's true. If you are only including income taxes and nothing else, then that's arguably true. But If you mean they end up paying the highest effective tax rate overall, that is incorrect.

That exists separately from a debate over if they are "job creators" or it's good for them to pay less, but proportionally, they tend to have lower ETRs than the "5%" or even the "40%".

I think I tipped my hand here, but I'm fairly liberal, but I've worked in very political situations where I've seen more sense from the other side. But that's how it goes, parties and even ideologies are rarely perfect fits for anyone.

No, you're not getting it: it's about the effects of using the money as opposed to letting people keep it. Saying you'll cut something else in the budget doesn't address this at all. That's politics, not economics.

I'm not sure why; a straightforward reading of the question doesn't suggest this, and it seems kinda convenient that you would interpret the question in a way that doesn't require you to answer it.

I am not sure how the first three can be true and not the fourth. I am by far not any kind of expert or economist, so please feel free to educate me. Obviously we all pay sales tax and at the same rate. So yes everyone is paying taxes in that respect. As far as income taxes go, there are a very large amount of people that are getting most or more of what they pay in throughout the year back. The top earners are flipping the majority of the income tax bill. This is going strictly by what I observe so please correct me where I am wrong. They are also more than likely paying more on property taxes because they are living in the higher tax areas. Things like capital gains taxes are not even thought about by typical middle class households. They don't have disposable income to invest. I know I look at things from a very simplistic, practical point of view. I am open to being shown different.

There's also no perspective from the other side. People always want to argue the small business aspect or the rising cost of living. First off, like it or not, small business is a dying breed. In 10-15 years there'll be no such thing. At least not the bricks and mortar type. There's plenty of room for internet entrepreneur's and people running small operations with little to no employees, but the idea of a mom and pop hardware store, for example, will be dead. Food service may be the last haven for the small business start-up outside the internet and they'll be able to get by with employees earning tips.

Second, the rise in prices that would be so obscene (take notice, Miss Vicky!), see this. The truth is every major corporation could increase wages across the board by a very substantial amount. For example, I used to work for US Bank. It employs about 65,000 people. That bank grossed around 2 billion (they did $500 million in the last quarter, I had to round on that annual amount, but when talking numbers that big who cares if I add or subtract a hundred million?). They could give all those employees a 25% raise and it'd barely budge the bottom line. The reason they don't? They don't want their shareholders to see a year where the gross doesn't grow. That's it. There's no "cost of living will go up if they pay us more!!!!!!1!!" They just want to show growth to keep the big money people optimistic, even if they have to **** all over the 64-something thousand people holding them up. This could apply to every billion dollar plus industry.

As to the OP, they haven't invented a political party where I would be welcome.

__________________

Every major corporation could increase wages substantially is a far cry from they would. Its nice to think big business will play fair, but they won't. There will always be somebody richer. The flip side is we all live better because of this greedy capitalist society. In theory I agree with the spread the wealth mentality. It is actually a very Christian principle in my opinion. However it should never be mandated government policy.

Where did you get that idea?

Re: seanc, I hope you don't mind me breaking up your reply into smaller segments, it's just easier for me to tackle. Also you are very polite! I hope I return the kindness.

The meat of my point is directed at the "1%" (I'll call them "toppers"), as I think that's a cleaner section of the country than just "the wealthy" (which is a bit more broad, even though because "1%" has become a bit politicized, it's become a bit more vague as well).

Yes and no. Obviously the higher income you have, the higher your marginal tax rate, but also note that much of the toppers don't get the majority of their money from income, but rather from capital gains (more on that in a sec).

Also, just for clarity, sales tax and property tax goes to the state/municipalities and not the federal government. But if I say "the government" I typically am lumping state and federal together.

There are also payroll taxes, specifically FICA. This is taxed at a flat rate, and your contribution to Social Security is capped, so after a certain point, the effective tax rate declines.

This is true, but capital gains is taxed lower than income would be for these individuals.

Basically, capital gains is ~15%, where the highest income tax bracket is 35%. So the more money you make in capital gains, the lower your effective tax rate is. And this is where toppers make the lion's share of their money.

So lets say you were very well off, and you made 500 thousand dollars in income, your tax rate would be somewhere around 28% (less than the highest tax bracket of 35% because it's on a graduated scale, your last 150k or so would be taxed at 35%).

Compare this to a topper that makes the vast majority of their money in capital gains, they are taxed near capital gains, or 15%.

However, some argue that the capital gains should be even lower because they believe this more directly spurs economic growth, I'm not totally won over by this idea, but I thought I should mention it.

None of this includes tax breaks and whatnot, but that's the basic idea behind it. Well, that's the basic idea with probably a few errors, but it should be generally correct.

I should also say that while I'm a liberal, I love markets. I'm very skeptical that they can totally self-manage though.

Edit:
On that note, there is a TON of economic policy that has DEEP religious roots. One of my favorite courses ever was looking at economics in religion. It's weird seeing names like Aquinas and Augustine pop up outside of philosophy or theology but they really fit.

I have to roll back a tad on that because everyone's definition of a "small business" is much bigger than mine. For example, Entrepreneur magazine and the International Data Group define it as businesses having as many as a thousand employees...

I'm talking more of small retail and manufacturing. There's going to be a decent service sector, but even those are franchises for the most part.

That said, the average income for these businesses, from what I can find, is $3-5 million. If you've got a handful of employees at that range, are you really going to be hurting if you have to raise their pay?

. What is your definition of Large businesses BB, 3 Oil companies and Microsoft .

Is that gross or net income?

__________________

I will be the first to admit before the last election I knew what a capital gains tax was but knew nothing about what percentages people were paying and the like. Obviously we all know this came up a lot when Romney was running (filthy rich bastard ). Frankly whatever they decide the capital gains rate should be it is going to have no effect on me or almost anybody around me. I am very doubtful that a raise in this % will stop people from investing either, I know this is something that is thrown around a lot.

However it does feel like double dipping to me, as does estate taxes. This is money these people have already been taxed on, now when they choose to put it back into the market we are effectively taxing it again. That is why the 15% number doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Anyway, maybe I am being naive but I see the government getting much more with Romney's 15% capital gains tax this year than the income tax % of all 125 employees where I work. I haven't seen an argument yet to change my mind that the wealthy are what make this country run. Don't get me wrong, I want in on that, but I don't demonize it because I am not.

This actually should have been my answer. In all honesty though, I'm generally more concerned with social issues and could really stand to learn a thing or two about economics.