Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
I can't stand your condescension.

Who the hell are you to tell us what we value is right or wrong?

Only government can build roads? Roads have long existed before the government!
The point sailed right over your head. Point being if there were no taxes and everyone had the ability to "vote with their wallets", and more importantly, there were no tax deductions for charity (since there wouldn't be taxes that would need deducting from), most people would spend the money on consumer goods and toys, and charity would dry up. No one would voluntarily contribute to the big needs in society
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Who are you to say? No one has the authority to pass said judgment on anyone.
See post #384
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:16 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,290,701 times
Reputation: 13901
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
The point sailed right over your head. Point being if there were no taxes and everyone had the ability to "vote with their wallets", and more importantly, there were no tax deductions for charity (since there wouldn't be taxes that would need deducting from), most people would spend the money on consumer goods and toys, and charity would dry up.
If what you allege were true, "society" would clearly indicate that which they value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
If what you allege were true, "society" would clearly indicate that which they value.
Just talk to most people on the street, the average person would rather have a smartphone, or a tablet, or a new performance car, than to fund a road or police or charity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:19 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,290,701 times
Reputation: 13901
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Just talk to most people on the street, the average person would rather have a smartphone, or a tablet, or a new performance car, than to fund a road or police or charity
So be it. NO ONE has the authority to impose values on society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So be it. NO ONE has the authority to impose values on society.
Don't complain to me then when you have to go back to driving on cobblestone roads.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:22 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,290,701 times
Reputation: 13901
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Don't complain to me then when you have to go back to driving on cobblestone roads.....
Why would I? I have no problem with paying a toll on toll roads. Neither should anyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,590 posts, read 14,732,837 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Why would I? I have no problem with paying a toll on toll roads. Neither should anyone else.
You're in the minority. The majority are against toll roads, and even in Texas, which has gone toll crazy in recent years, there has been push after push in the state house for TxDot to buy the toll roads from the contract holders and remove the tolls. And it's mainly due to angry constituents
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,264,737 times
Reputation: 21747
Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
So we are finally getting somewhere. But please do include everything else. Let me start:
20k in childcare per year, that's 20% tax on a 100k family income.
That is not a tax, no matter how you try to deviously spin it.

The cost of childcare is self-imposed by the family, and no other entity. They are free to seek cheaper alternatives anytime they want.

And, the don't pay $20,000. They get a tax credit of $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more.

I'm guessing you don't understand the difference between an income deduction and a tax credit. An income deduction alters your AGI, while a tax credit reduces the amount of taxes owed.

So, if they owe $10,000 in taxes, they actually only pay $7,000 or $4,000 with the credit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
20k health insurance a year, so that's a 20% also if self paid. That will vary based on employer's contribution.
Health insurance is tax exempt, and has been since the 1942 ruling by the National War Labor Board.

You might want to pay attention to items #1 and #3 on your W-2 Form.

Not only do you not pay federal taxes on health insurance premiums, you don't pay FICA taxes, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serger View Post
Property taxes (fair game, because they fund the K-12, while schools are nationally funded in most of Europe).
Property taxes are a voluntary choice in two ways. First, you vote to approve or disapprove of property taxes, and second, you are free to a move anywhere where property taxes are cheaper.

To even mention Euro-States is disingenuous and propagandistic.

Education existed at the time of the Constitution, but the Framers chose to make it exclusively the purview of the States and not the federal government.

Obviously, you've never read the committee meeting notes, because none of the Framers supported federal control of education for the most obvious reasons.

It is improper to compare homogeneous nation-States who are organized as unitary States with a heterogeneous federal republic, like the US.

There are three governmental systems, a unitary State, a confederation and a federation, and the Framers of the Constitution ignored the unitary State for obvious reasons, namely, that unitary States are only successful when the population is homogeneous.

The US was never homogeneous. Even before colonists arrived, the US had a heterogeneous population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Should college be so expensive?
It costs what it costs. Doesn't matter who funds it, it still costs what it costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
A privilege for those with parents who can afford the cost and/or such a burden for the kids that need to take out student loans
Kids don't need student loans, they want them.

There's a difference.

15 years ago, I got two additional undergraduate degrees, a Master's and a PhD and I didn't use student loans.

Only one of the four students I roomed with used student loans. The rest of us worked and relied on federal, State and private education grants.

And she only borrowed $2,000 the first year and $3,000 the second year. She could have borrowed $30,000 but she borrowed only what she needed.

That's part of the problem. Kids are borrowing $30,000 to pay for $8,000 to $15,000 in tuition, and then blowing the money on cars and breast implants and clothes and Spring Break in Cancun, and now they're mad, because they have to pay that money back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:36 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,947 posts, read 24,849,914 times
Reputation: 9728
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
the Black Knight has arrived!

that's a Monty Python reference, btw
I don't know what you mean.


Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Do you know who the stockholders are in the US?

100+ million US workers and retirees have $28 trillion invested in their pensions and their retirement accounts. THEY are stockholders. THEY own corporate debt. THEY are investors. If they don't profit from their investments, they don't get their promised defined benefit pensions, or enough growth in their retirement accounts to be able to draw an adequate amount in their retirement.

https://www.pionline.com/article/201...om-end-of-2017
It's pretty silly and dangerous to make something important such as people's pensions depend on companies and corporations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You're talking about three homogeneous nation-State kingdoms, and a republic (who except for the Lapps is homogeneous).

The populations of those homogeneous nation-States are smaller than US cities.

Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) has more people than Norway. That's one US county out of 3,007 US counties.

The currencies of those homogeneous nation-States are not the de facto international currency of trade, nor the de facto international reserve currency.

Those homogeneous nation-States are defended and protected by the tax-payers of the US, while spending virtually nothing on their own defense.

You can only compare things that are similar in nature.

It's disingenuous and propagandistic to compare three tiny homogeneous nation-State kingdoms to a heterogeneous republic whose population is 35 times larger than theirs.



Then you haven't studied history.



Yes, it does matter.

In 1971, there were 333 multinational enterprises in the World.

Today, there are more than 38,000....more than 114 times more.

The Supply of CEOs -- those persons who have the education, training, experience and knowledge -- to manage a multinational corporation is very, very low, while the Demand for such persons is incredibly high.

That's why their wages are high.

A irrefutable fact I pointed out which you ignored is that the US can no longer look only in the US for CEOs, it must look throughout the entire World to get the very best, and that's why a number of CEOs for US multinational enterprises are foreign-born and not US citizens.

Your bias shows, because you don't have an issue with athletes, entertainers or others who earn more than CEOs.

They get paid those high wages for the exact same reason CEOs do: Supply & Demand.
Size doesn't matter, things scale. Scandinavians are not protected by US taxpayers. To the contrary, the US and Nato keep deliberately provoking problems with Russia (which I suppose you are talking about, I don't see any other threats), it started decades ago with Nato's expansion beyond Germany's eastern border. It's like those sicko firemen that start wildfires and then pretend they are the heroes coming to the rescue.

Regarding CEO's, it's not necessary to get the best ones. Many of them screw up just like mediocre ones do, and when they do, they cause much more damage as they are hired most of all by big companies. Think of Yahoo and such companies.
Also, it is another reason to prevent companies from becoming too big. The smaller a company is, the easier it is to run. Not to mention the dangerous quasi monopolies in some industries.

Where did I say that I was not against excessive incomes for entertainers, athletes etc.?!


Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Here you go:

Be sure to read the scatter plot chart and understand what it is telling us. There IS a distinct pattern. Read and learn:

How Other Developed Countries Tax and Spend

There's even a link to the research on which that Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations. Again... read and learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's the tax rate one actually pays. Read the document I linked from the Belgian institute.
Your statements don't make sense: "Note that the highest levels of government benefits and services are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values along the bottom axis, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes)"

In Scandinavia the tax rate increases with income.

The tax rate, i.e. bracket, depends on the person's income. There is no real vs unreal or whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top