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.
Nanny state my ass. You confuse wanting a better deal from corporate America with government handouts.
We have no sick leave by law. We have no vacation time by law. We have no maternity leave by law. All of the people in Europe have all of those things. It's as if Europe won WW 2 and American workers lost.
You're better off in Europe if your income is below the 40th percentile roughly, and you're better off in America if your income is above the 40th percentile roughly. So a majority of people are better off in the US.
It is easier to survive in Europe. It is harder to build wealth there.
You're better off in Europe if your income is below the 40th percentile roughly, and you're better off in America if your income is above the 40th percentile roughly. So a majority of people are better off in the US.
It is easier to survive in Europe. It is harder to build wealth there.
The social safety net is better there and I suppose that the wealthier pay for it. I would really like to see a breakdown comparison of taxes between Germany and some of our more prosperous states for someone making 100K a year.
The social safety net is better there and I suppose that the wealthier pay for it. I would really like to see a breakdown comparison of taxes between Germany and some of our more prosperous states for someone making 100K a year.
It's more complicated than just taxes. There are also transfer payments, pensions, health care, etc.
The OECD attempted to tabulate all of this with a concept called "net adjusted" disposable income.
If you make $100,000 in the US, you are way better off here than in Germany. The threshold at which you would be better off in Germany is less than $35-40k a year.
Now reality: the majority of the tax cuts go into the pockets of those who are already in possession of the vast majority of the wealth, and none of the things you describe consistently happen. That is definitely the case state side. Maybe companies expand overseas, but that does little good for the people for whom government policy is supposed to serve. Cheap chinese goods at Walmart don't = a higher standard of living.
Tax cuts. As in income tax. These cuts benefit the people who actually pay income taxes. About half the country doesn't pitch in.
There you go. Let's change history. The term was invented by Paul Volcker to explain Reaganomics. If you look at this another way, you're right. Money made by the rich never finds it's way down stream.
Sure it does. Have you SEEN the job market and unemployment numbers lately? If by trickle down, you make as much as a CEO, then no. Geez.
the government trickles down about $12K a month to me and the wife in pension income.
I'm loving the trickle.
I couldn't imagine a better pension. However that's not what Reagan or Volcker had in mind when they propagandized tax cuts. If anything Reaganomics would put downward pressure on any government pension.
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.
