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 agree! I live in Florida!!! & it is exactly as you described! Completely depleted of humanity and the sense of community that we should all have!
Of course there are communities. Most people are in their small circles of whatever interest. There are communities out there. And that's what it comes down to eventually.
You want people to live in dense urban neighborhoods. They are still in their own world. What this is all about is wealth sharing not some vague sense of community.
Hahahaha, are you serious? First, who defined the "more or less capitalist" map? Canada is more capitalist than the U.S.? Higher taxes as a percentage of GDP, less inequality, more universal social welfare benefits, etc... but more capitalist? But even that map is indicative of little.
Why, you might say? Well, as I pointed out, increasing GDP without increased health, welfare, happiness, utility, etc.. has little or no value. Denmark is certainly poorer than the U.S. but consistently rates happier. What is better? Wealth or the human achievements wealth is supposed to, but does not always, purchase?
Taxes as % of GDP is almost identical. We're talking less than 1% difference. The difference is largely in how those taxes are levied. Canada has lower top income tax brackets for individuals and lower corporate income tax rates than the US and does not double tax dividend income. Instead it has VAT which is a so-called regressive tax since people with lower incomes tend to consume more of their income. So yeah, in those respects Canada is more capitalistic.
That's not just me saying that. If you look at things like the Economic Freedom Index (was sways heavily right wing/capitalist) they put Canada ahead of the United States. It didn't always used to be like this, but Canada and the US have basically been going in opposite directions for the last 20 years. The US has been become less and less capitalistic, Canada more and more so.
Of course there are communities. Most people are in their small circles of whatever interest. There are communities out there. And that's what it comes down to eventually.
You want people to live in dense urban neighborhoods. They are still in their own world. What this is all about is wealth sharing not some vague sense of community.
People in dense urban neighborhoods tend to be more insular and cliquish. That's by necessity. It requires a lot of emotional energy to give a **** about people. If you're surrounded by thousands and thousands of people, the natural human response is to not care about them. You have more meaningless interactions, basically. The 150-person limit on organizations is pretty well documented at this point. Past that, you start forming subgroups and becoming insular.
How can one conclude that diminished socioeconomic mobility is CAUSED by large income ratios rather than vice versa? Or that the two may be caused by a common third factor?
Until you demonstrate or argue for the causation or its relative plausibility, you haven't really made a successful argument for the corresponding public policy.
You make a valid point but the pay ratio in the article creates a total disconnect between a CEO and his/her subordinates. They all become Romney who talks about Nascar owners and elevators for his cars. He is walking talking evidence of this disconnect. I remember when Carly Fiorina said that Americans don't have a God given right to a job. She may have stated a fact but here you had an American CEO with a national loyalty of a GPS device.
Last edited by Tonyafd; 12-26-2014 at 04:49 PM..
Reason: grammar
This is misleading because the capital gains tax is calculated without the cost basis being adjusted for inflation, and the dividend money has already been taxed at the corporate level.
I don't find it misleading at all. It doesn't matter it is taxed at the corporate level, there is a transaction tax if you make a profit. I am all for the 20% tax personally, but maybe there could be a level the amount is taxed at a normal rate. In other words, if you are a big trader you can get the 20% on the first million traded that year and the rest is taxed on your bracket. What do you have to say about the cap on SS????? That is TOTAL BS!
I don't find it misleading at all. It doesn't matter it is taxed at the corporate level, there is a transaction tax if you make a profit. I am all for the 20% tax personally, but maybe there could be a level the amount is taxed at a normal rate.
They already are. Short term capital gain is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income if you have owned the asset for less than one year. This, naturally, includes all the fast traders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gg
In other words, if you are a big trader you can get the 20% on the first million traded that year and the rest is taxed on your bracket. What do you have to say about the cap on SS????? That is TOTAL BS!
They only want to try once. If it doesn't work then you got to give the money. They do not want to work hard. They are lazy. They see this and that job beneath them and walk away and set in their parents basement. You know what the hard-working person from Central America then applied for that job at manages to send money back home. Statistic shows that these immigrants send a lot of money to their culture of original to help the relatives and family. No that's more than a living wage. These people have disposable income.
You can almost reversely interpret the cold phrases that they use. They don't call it greed when they expect everything by doing nothing. They don't consider their fair share when they do nothing to contribute and expect incentives.
What all of this comes down to though Sattley is that Americans are deeply entitled and they suck at personal finance. They do not know financial concepts they do not know how to plan for their personal finance. They choose majors to study for personal enrichment and cultural interests than financial necessity. Because somebody else will pay for that later. Somebody else will wipe their ass. Somebody else will take care of the mess that they leave behind. Somebody else will have what is known as accountability for these people. Somebody else will be the adult to take care of people who never want to grow up.
That is what the rest of us in this country are sick and tired of.
It is impossible to TOTALLY avoid ANY AND ALL possible abuse of the system without creating undue hardships on some.
It is a balancing act. The system should be fine-tuned so that the marginal abuse of the system causes an equal harm as the marginal reduction in undue economic hardship causes a reduction in harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX
Because each personal/family situation is unique, those questions can & should be answered only by the person/family ready to do what it takes to become upwardly mobile.
Upward mobility cannot be achieved by wealth redistribution.
Cannot be achieved by wealth redistribution alone. But while waiting for one's chance to get the promotion, someone has to pay the bills in the meantime.
If we use Canada as an example, can we not deduce that it IS possible for a wealthy, dynamic country to implement policies that benefit the public (ie. for the common good) AND that foster a healthy business climate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
The US has weaker protections for personal property than Canada, look at things like civil forfeiture or eminent domain in the US vs Canada. The US has higher income taxes on both individuals and corporations and double taxes dividend income. In turn, Canada has higher VAT sales tax. Total tax burden is roughly the same, it's just the US tax system is more progressive in nature. Public debt is slightly less and Canada has been much more successful in reigning in government spending in recent years than the US has. Canada has lower tariffs than the United States and actively pursues open trade and tariff reduction. The United States has higher tariffs and actively pursues trade wars.
I'm more a pragmatist than anything else. Health care in the United States is broken. We pay a disgusting amount of money on health care in this country and really don't get a whole lot from it. Plus it's not really that different. Government in the United States spends most of the money on the health care in this country anyway. Our government spends more on health care per capita than Canada's does under its single-payer system. As I said, broken. The difference is the Canadian government pays less for its single-payer system per capita than our government does for our broken "free market" system. I'm a bigger fan of less government. If the single-payer system means less government spending on health care than our current system, I'm completely for it.
Okay. You seem to have a reasonably good understanding of the differences between the tax structures between the two countries. But you didn't answer my question. If you think that Canada is better in many respects, then you MUST believe it IS possible for a wealthy country to implement policies that benefit the public (and the common good) AND that foster a healthy business climate. One need not preclude the other. Correct?
Because, you see, Canada does NOT have less government. Far from it, in fact, and that was precisely my point. I merely wanted YOU to reconcile YOUR belief that there should be almost no government involvement in the economy with your previous stated claim that Canada supports economic and individual freedom better than does the US. Can you reconcile what you seem to believe are incompatible economic models?
BTW, the VAT tax in Canada is called the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
We need, expect, and will demonstrate until we get a workable playing field that allows average Americans some better way of living than part time, low paying, no benefits jobs while CEOs and wealthy people continue to rake in profits from the work citizens do now on the cheap. Salaries today are not keeping up with the prices of food, clothing, rent, and every high cost of living and if you think wealthy people care about your problem of meeting expenses of living, think again.... They are the people that put us where we are today
Kobe Bryant makes more a year than pretty much any CEO.
Jay Z makes more.
Kim Kardashian makes enough to land in the top 5 CEO pay.
There are many dozen baseball players that are the same.
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.
