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.
Any honest person, would admit that the US with a federal system has more layers of taxes than in most European countries.
Did you look into that, or did you just thrown it out there spiced with "any honest person would agree"? I have lived in Europe, and I do not think your assumption is correct.
I'll give you tax relief, but its hard to take his spending cuts seriously when spending increased each year during his tenure; it just didn't increase to the extent that it would have otherwise (what a joke).
It negates your point because no one pays 53% in taxes. You are arguing marginal tax rates without realizing no one pays it.
And you do realize there are local tax rates in the UK as well right ????????????
First off, they don't have local income taxes in the UK.
And this time you just dodged the question. Lets try again, "how does the fact that no one pays 53% in income tax, negate the point that top marginal tax rate is 53% in California?"
I hope you can come with a better argument than "no one pays 53%" Also, no one pay 45% in the UK, does that mean the marginal income tax in the UK is not 45%?
Quote:
I compared Apples to organges in the context of you only providing the marginal rate.
Ok, so what you are saying is that you think it is acceptable to compare apples with oranges, because you can only find US average high income tax data.
I wonder what grade you would get with this argument. "I couldn't find any data, so I decided to compare US average income with UK full time income".
Thats a pathetic excuse.
Quote:
Again, do you not understand the flaw in your argument? you still arent including local and National insurance cost for the UK.
45% +12% is 57% and thats not including local numbers, and even when using effective numbers which is what we should be doing, that still puts the UK above California.
And now you just proved that you don't know the UK tax system, and that you don't read other people's posts. This dumb argument has already been debunked.
Except for 2%, the national insurance has a cap, and is similar to social security tax in the US.
Quote:
Further more, the link I provided shows the state tax rates and there are only a hand full of states(maybe 6 in total) that would even be above the 33% marginal rate of the UK when you include local taxes.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about marginal income taxes in left wing states like California. US as a whole of course have lower marginal income taxes.
Quote:
The chart proved me right, as stated, you continue to leave out information arguing only the national tax rate of the Uk, but not the local taxes in the UK or the National health insurance( SSI is included in the US tax numbers)
Of course I leave them out, because they either don't exist or are irrelevant for the marginal tax rate. UK have no local income taxes and national health insurance have a cap, just like social security. It is however true that 2% does not have a cap, but 53% is still larger han 45+2%.
But for your chart it gets even worse. Those figures in your chart already includes the national health insurance. So the only number you should add to US 26% and UK 32% is local taxes. Marginal local income tax in the UK is 0%, while it is 13.3% in california. Hence for high income earners, the average and the marginal income tax is higher in California.
So yes, your own chart proved you wrong, and I guess you find that very humilating.
Quote:
Which has nothing to do with the actual argument which was the amount, You are arguing a math error instead of the substance of the debate.
the current UK minimum wage is 10.05 In US dollars, thats only 0.05 less than what Democrats are proposing. If the UK conservatives get their way, the UK minimum wage will continue to pace ahead of the US and at a larger rate.
Part of the actual argument was your bogus math, which you used to show the increase is not that large.
The rest has been answered over and over again. Politics is dynamic, if minimum wage was 20% lower they would still increase it with inflation. Do you seriously think UK conservatives would ask for a 20+% increase if the minimum wage was 20% lower?
Quote:
1. the argument isnt no new reforms, but the reaching of the goal itself.
politics is indeed dynamic, but your argument seems to be that the goals themselves dont really exist, that they are a false finish line and that just isnt true.
2. See, now we are making progress, you clearly misunderstood my post as I wasnt talking about making new campaign promises about what you would do in a second term.
Im talking about not fulfilling(or not even trying to) any promises you ran on in the first place.
3. thats an arbitrary argument. Entry is illegal, but simply being here isnt. Thats what you were arguing, not the entrance. Not all illegals got here illegally.
Obviously i know that, you are simply misusing the word amnesty.
4. Actually, you proposed that I do that, I never once accepted, so i wasnt "Supposed" to do anything.
However, i did give you an example of THIS country, where you claim it is a right vs left issue and yet all the candidates for President support immigration reform, what you would call amnesty.
1. Just recently you said that "politics is dynamic is my opinion, and that you disagree." Now you agree politics is dynamic. And yes the goals are a false finish line, because once they reach goal they will point at a new finish line.
2. It was you who responded to the comment shown below.
"So no they are not going to stop once they reach their 5 year goals, thats not how politics work."
If you don't disagree, then don't make a big debate about everything.
3. As illegal entry (or overstaying) is illegal, then getting a pardon on that crime is amnesty. If they are also given work permits, then it is definitively amnesty, as they wouldn't have gotten it if they didn't enter ilegally.
4. I asked you to give an example, because if it is not a right or left issue it shouldn't be hard to find some countries where the left is against immigration and the right is in favour. It is not hard to find the opposite.
United States do not win you any points, as Republicans is much more against immigration compared to Democrats. Even the Republicans who support amnesty, want much stricter terms than Democrats do.
Also, I don't know why you keep saying that all Republican candidates support amnesty, Ted Cruz has never supported it, neither has Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal. Others who support it, want to secure the border first.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
First off, they don't have local income taxes in the UK.
Google Council tax.
Quote:
And this time you just dodged the question. Lets try again, "how does the fact that no one pays 53% in income tax, negate the point that top marginal tax rate is 53% in California?"
I didnt dodge the question, my answer was very simple. No one pays it there for it doesnt matter.
Quote:
I hope you can come with a better argument than "no one pays 53%" Also, no one pay 45% in the UK, does that mean the marginal income tax in the UK is not 45%?
See, you are arguing what you want me to say rather than what I said.
I ddint say the top rate wasnt 45%/53% simply that no one pays it in reality. Lets debate whats actually being said, not what you want others to say.
Quote:
Ok, so what you are saying is that you think it is acceptable to compare apples with oranges, because you can only find US average high income tax data.
I wonder what grade you would get with this argument. "I couldn't find any data, so I decided to compare US average income with UK full time income".
Thats a pathetic excuse.
Thats not my argument, its more so yours than anything else sense you put forth the flawed argument of comparing Marginal rates, and then when asked to put forth both effective rates, you ignored the request.
Quote:
And now you just proved that you don't know the UK tax system, and that you don't read other people's posts. This dumb argument has already been debunked.
Except for 2%, the national insurance has a cap, and is similar to social security tax in the US.
we agree, your argument has been debunked.
Quote:
That is irrelevant, I was talking about marginal income taxes in left wing states like California. US as a whole of course have lower marginal income taxes.
So you are literally just arguing for the Highest marginal rates in California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Minnesota,New Jersey, Iowa and Vermont.
Again, do you not see the flaw in your argument, you are arguing the UK average rate vs just those 8 states in the US.
All the other states in the US have lower rates, and im guessing the average would be lower than the US, but definition, your argument is nothing more than cherry picking.
Quote:
Of course I leave them out, because they either don't exist or are irrelevant for the marginal tax rate. UK have no local income taxes and national health insurance have a cap, just like social security. It is however true that 2% does not have a cap, but 53% is still larger han 45+2%.
But for your chart it gets even worse. Those figures in your chart already includes the national health insurance. So the only number you should add to US 26% and UK 32% is local taxes. Marginal local income tax in the UK is 0%, while it is 13.3% in california. Hence for high income earners, the average and the marginal income tax is higher in California.
So yes, your own chart proved you wrong, and I guess you find that very humilating.
The chart does not include the UK local taxes or National health insurance.
Try again/
Quote:
Part of the actual argument was your bogus math, which you used to show the increase is not that large.
I indeed included it, but it being 29% or 39% doesnt change the overall argument you had.
again,t he UK minimum wage is already at 10.05 US dollars
Quote:
The rest has been answered over and over again. Politics is dynamic, if minimum wage was 20% lower they would still increase it with inflation. Do you seriously think UK conservatives would ask for a 20+% increase if the minimum wage was 20% lower?
You didnt answer my question, you gave an opinion.
And either you dont know what dynamic means or you simply dont understand what it means.
If you truly believe politics are dynamic then you know that your question at the end cant be answered by fact, only opinion, because the Conservatives would probably have a different policy in a different time and place if we indeed had different circumstances.
Quote:
1. Just recently you said that "politics is dynamic is my opinion, and that you disagree." Now you agree politics is dynamic. And yes the goals are a false finish line, because once they reach goal they will point at a new finish line
Thats because you seem to be using the word differently in different post.
Dynamic means fluid changing(like you used in the above quote about goals), but in the response to your post about minimum wage, you seem to be using it as saying the party would always stay the same.
Quote:
2. It was you who responded to the comment shown below.
"So no they are not going to stop once they reach their 5 year goals, thats not how politics work."
If you don't disagree, then don't make a big debate about everything.
I do disagree, and I stated why.
3. As illegal entry (or overstaying) is illegal, then getting a pardon on that crime is amnesty. If they are also given work permits, then it is definitively amnesty, as they wouldn't have gotten it if they didn't enter ilegally.
Quote:
4. I asked you to give an example, because if it is not a right or left issue it shouldn't be hard to find some countries where the left is against immigration and the right is in favour. It is not hard to find the opposite.
United States do not win you any points, as Republicans is much more against immigration compared to Democrats. Even the Republicans who support amnesty, want much stricter terms than Democrats do.
They arent against immigration reform, thats the problem with your argument, they just want more border security first.
Wanting stricter terms =/= being against, and thats your flawed argument.
Quote:
Also, I don't know why you keep saying that all Republican candidates support amnesty, Ted Cruz has never supported it, neither has Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal. Others who support it, want to secure the border first.
Neither Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal has announced and you are just dead wrong on Cruz.
Atta boy Nigel.......... I knew he'd be back. I just didn't think it'd be so quick!! He has said in the past the 2020 election could be the turning point. He has to concentrate on building the vote. UKIP came second in 118 of the 650 parliamentary seats. 12.6% percent of the vote got them 1 MP. No point bellyaching about the first past the post voting system. Build the vote, and the seats will come.
Is council tax an income tax? Either you are trolling, or you completly lack knowledge about the UK tax system.
Quote:
I ddint say the top rate wasnt 45%/53% simply that no one pays it in reality.
Was that so hard? Hence, just like I said earlier California has a higher top marginal tax rate (53%), than the UK (47%).
Happy to see you finally stopped trying to dodge the question, and accepted the reality.
Quote:
Thats not my argument, its more so yours than anything else sense you put forth the flawed argument of comparing Marginal rates, and then when asked to put forth both effective rates, you ignored the request.
If it is not your argument, then why did you use it as an excuse for why you are allowed to compare oranges to apples. You said it was my fault, because I haven't given you the data.
Since you have given up the argument, I will go back to the original argument. Here is the quote.
The majority of americans dont pay the top tax rate,they pay the 25%,15% and 10%, that means they dont even come close to the 45% of the UK even when you include state taxes.
Here you are comparing UK top marginal tax without deductions, with US average high income tax rate with deductions.
Quote:
we agree, your argument has been debunked.
How about you do the responsible thing and admit your mistakes instead of start trolling.
You claimed I need to add 12% national insurance to the marginal tax rate, you were wrong, it has a cap.
So you are literally just arguing for the Highest marginal rates in California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Minnesota,New Jersey, Iowa and Vermont.
Again, do you not see the flaw in your argument, you are arguing the UK average rate vs just those 8 states in the US.
If you had actually bothered to read my argument, you would realize that I was only talking about the Democrat position compared to UK conservatives position. What I am showing is that UK conservatives is to the right of Democrats.
Hence, it makes no sense to compare red states, or even purple states because I am only comparing them with what Democrats want to do.
Quote:
The chart does not include the UK local taxes or National health insurance.
Try again/
National health insurance is the same as employee social security. If employee social security is not national health insurance, then which tax does it represent? It doesn't seem like you understood the chart you linked to dsjj251.
And from the chart below, we can see that if we add California 13.3% state income tax, then it becomes higher than Britain.
Quote:
You didnt answer my question, you gave an opinion.
And either you dont know what dynamic means or you simply dont understand what it means.
If you truly believe politics are dynamic then you know that your question at the end cant be answered by fact, only opinion, because the Conservatives would probably have a different policy in a different time and place if we indeed had different circumstances.
The point about it being dynamic and not static is that politics has an objective, but not a finish line.
For instance the minimum wage in Spain is 5 dollar per hour, but the right wing parties do not want to increase it. That is not because they are far right compared to France, but because politics is dynamic.
Minimum wage relative to median wage is 36% higher in Portugal and 54% higher in France. In a static world France and Portugal should start to decrease the minimum wage, while spain would increase it. But as politics is dynamic, france kept increasing minimum wage while Spain and Portugal kept it the same to reduce unemployment.
Quote:
1. Thats because you seem to be using the word differently in different post.
Dynamic means fluid changing(like you used in the above quote about goals), but in the response to your post about minimum wage, you seem to be using it as saying the party would always stay the same.
2. I do disagree, and I stated why.
4. They arent against immigration reform, thats the problem with your argument, they just want more border security first.
Wanting stricter terms =/= being against, and thats your flawed argument.
Neither Rick Santorum or Bobby Jindal has announced and you are just dead wrong on Cruz.
1. Thats because their objective stays the same, but what they will do changes depending on the situation of the country. If the minimum wage is 5 pounds in the UK, they may want to increase it to 5.2, while labour ask for an increase to 5.4.
If the minimum wage is 7 pounds, they may increase it to 7.2, while labour ask for an increase to 7.4. What UK conservatives certainly won't do, is to attempt to decrease it to 5.2.
2. You said in the previous post that I misunderstood you, except it was you who suddenly changed topic.
If you disagree, then tell me why can't a party make new goals after they have finished their term?
3. Seem to be missing, anyway it was dumb of you to argue about what is amnesty and what isn't.
4. Did you read the link you gave to me. He clearly states that he is against amnesty.
And of course no one wants no immigration at all, just like no one wants to no government at all. But when people say they are against immigration, it actually means they want to restrict immigration.
I have to say. The uncontrolled and uncensored internet, like the forum here, has exposed Socialism for what it really is.
The message that blows the whistle, is no longer silenced.
People are seeing what the collective has in store for people.
Roads are socialist, social security is socialist, medicare is socialist
YOu might have a leg to stand on if multnational corporations didn't hold so much power over the lives of American citizens, and these multnationals are not held into account by national borders or the people who pay them for their services.
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.
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.
I knew he'd be back. I just didn't think it'd be so quick!! He has said in the past the 2020 election could be the turning point. He has to concentrate on building the vote. UKIP came second in 118 of the 650 parliamentary seats. 12.6% percent of the vote got them 1 MP. No point bellyaching about the first past the post voting system. Build the vote, and the seats will come.
