Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The tax rate in Germany pays for those benefits, the government doesn't provide them"
splain that to me Lucy.
The government exists only through taxes.
If taxes pay for benefits it must be the government distributing the money, therefore the government who is using the collected tax money, is paying for the benefits.
The government cannot provide anything without the collection of tax. So it does not have its own 'stash' as some believe Obama has and from which he distributes free money.
And the new President is a real Socialist, not an imaginary one like we have here (according to some people).
Perhaps you would be so kind as to list or describe the actual differences for those of us finding it hard to differentiate between O'Bama and what "some people" refer to as "socialisitic".
Finally, one country has woken up to the fact that the interests of international bond investors are not necessarily aligned with the interests of their nation. Is austerity necessary to address the debt crisis? Absolutely. But so is greater regulation of the financial markets, control of the flow of capital, and the continuation of social policies that will slow the ongoing accumulation of wealth in a tiny few and the impoverishment of many. Austerity without such efforts is just a recipe to enrich the wealthiest of our global society at the expense of everyone else.
Come to think of it. It is pretty ironic that the banker scumbags make millions and even million dollar bonuses for cooking up financial kryptonite, while the people get "austerity." That is the Bush/Sarkozy/Romney model.
47% of the country pays no FEDERAL income taxes, but they do pay local and state taxes, which include sales taxes, which are regressive.
The reason why this is the case is that inequality is so high that half of Americans are too poor to even pay any federal income taxes.
Your point being? High taxes = High GDP growth.
Let me give you an example.
Let's say you're the CEO of a company and made $1000 in profits.
You could take $500 for yourself and pay the 75% income tax rate, so you'd take only $125 home.
OR, you could reinvest $700 into the company (buy more capital, increase wages etc.), and keep $300, on which you would pay a 40% tax rate, and therefore keep $180 for yourself.
Now which one do you think stimulates the economy the most and is better for the overall population?
Taxing the rich at a very high rate is a good idea. At least 40% to 50% for the top rich people. All they do with the money is waste it on fancy yachts and send it overseas. We need that money here.
Not quite so secret anymore after US intimidation.
It was only a few years ago that America 'wanted' Swiss banks to reveal which Americans had accounts in Switzerland. After several days the Swiss refused. Nothing has changed.
Boy are they in for dissappointment. The Swiss have even higher tax rates for the rich!
Yes .... and no.
It really depends on the Canton you live in. The bulk of Swiss taxes are cantonal and not federal. Some cantons (e.g. Geneva) have high taxes while others (e.g. Zug) have lower taxes. In addition, the various Swiss tax authorities are willing to negotiate on taxes in order to attract rich foreigners. They would rather have 20% of something than 50% of nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.