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.
No, but the "investments" you speak of are to enrich themselves, and others like themselves. It's a shell game, and only the people at the top truly benefit. There is no trickle down, there is no great reward for the hard work at the bottom.
The reality disagrees with you.
70% of the rich lose their wealth by the third generation and 90% by the fourth.
On the flip side, 80% of the new rich is self made first generation rich.
There's even a link to the research on which the Washington Post article is based. It includes numerous additional citations.
Income tax is not regressive at all, the more you earn, the higher the tax rate. And in Europe wealthy people usually do pay their taxes, only a few use loopholes or tax havens.
Scandinavia tends to be rather transparent. In one of those countries (don't remember which one) people's incomes are published on the Internet for everyone to see.
And consumption taxes don't depend on income at all, but simply on what you buy and how much of it.
So even there one might say that when you are rich, you usually have a bigger car, so you pay more for gas, insurance etc. And you usually have a bigger house rather than a rented apartment. So you pay a yearly tax on your real estate.
The more you buy, the more taxes you pay in absolute amounts, but the rates are the same for all.
Income tax is not regressive at all, the more you earn, the higher the tax rate. And in Europe wealthy people usually do pay their taxes, only a few use loopholes or tax havens.
And consumption taxes don't depend on income at all, but simply on what you buy and how much of it.
So even there one might say that when you are rich, you usually have a bigger car, so you pay more for gas, insurance etc. And you usually have a bigger house rather than a rented apartment. So you pay a yearly tax on your real estate.
The more you buy, the more taxes you pay in absolute amounts, but the rates are the same for all.
I can't wait to work my way up and pay a third of my income to taxes.
Income tax is not regressive at all, the more you earn, the higher the tax rate. And in Europe wealthy people usually do pay their taxes, only a few use loopholes or tax havens.
Take a look at the reality of flatter income tax brackets which put the European middle class in the top income tax rate bracket while the US middle class gets a huge tax break:
Now, on top of that add a 20%-25% VAT tax that everyone pays to get the following national tax rates a typical worker (average income) pays in European countries. The effective national tax rate is in the second from the right column on page 9:
Take a look at the reality of flatter income tax brackets which put the European middle class in the top income tax rate bracket while the US middle class gets a huge tax break:
Now, on top of that add a 20%-25% VAT tax that everyone pays to get the following national tax rates a typical worker (average income) pays in European countries. The effective national tax rate is in the second from the right column on page 9:
Do you think the US middle class would agree to be taxed at that level?
I find it interesting that you use two links from self-declared think tanks, both of which are neo-liberal and biased against taxes and in favor of policies that for instance the US Republican party promotes.
Whatever they say, fact is what I said in my previous post. The higher your income, the higher the tax rate. I.e. progressive.
And indirect taxes are the same for everyone. Everyone needs to buy food, pay for water, electricity etc.
If you don't want to pay sky-high taxes on cigarettes, don't smoke. Nobody forces people to spend their money on items of luxury.
I can't wait to work my way up and pay a third of my income to taxes.
Why not? People get a lot in return, else Scandinavia would not be at the top of almost all rankings. They have great infrastructure, public schools etc., which of course requires investment.
It is a different culture. People in Scandinavia don't live to become rich, they have different priorities. When you know the state is there for you when you need it, there is no need to become wealthy in order to be safe. Nor do they have that whole class thingy.
I find it interesting that you use two links from self-declared think tanks, both of which are neo-liberal and biased against taxes and in favor of policies that for instance the US Republican party promotes.
Data source: OECD. Enough said. Or do you somehow wish to mistakenly assert that European countries have neither regressive VAT taxes nor flatter income tax brackets?
Short answer is not to think there will ever be a day when we don't have poor people and/or rich people, but there is what can be done to help limit the disparities of opportunity between those born disadvantaged vs those born with advantage.
A quick peek at another thread about Warren's proposed free child care immediately caused me to think people will either be for or against depending on whether they believe this effort to limit the above referenced disparities is appropriate for any society to work toward. Needless to say, better access to affordable child care, health care, education, nutritious foods and a safe environment - for as many people as possible -- rich or poor is how we best better provide opportunity for those born disadvantaged.
Some complain about all this "free stuff," as if there is no cost to America that comes from poverty. Do the math with respect to the cost of drugs, crime, poor health and all the rest compared to providing better access to all that helps mitigate the cost of poverty in America, and only then can you come to a better conclusion about how our tax dollars are best spent. Then too the question of who further up the economic ladder should pay what rate of taxes to support these efforts along with all the rest our government is more than happy to spend money on.
Far as you are concerned, should we bother with what I note in bold above? Why or why not?
Answer tends to determine whether you understand where people like Warren, Sanders, Newsom and other more progressive type thinkers are coming from...
Gov. Newsom proposing to expand services for babies and toddlers
Opportunity. Everyone in this country, with the exception of the disabled (born a vegetable etc), have the same opportunity to become what they want. I put my pants on the same way Kobe Bryant does. I do not have the same passion for basketball that he did and so I'll never have a multi-million dollar Nike contract thrown my way. That doesn't mean that I didn't have the same opportunity to earn those millions, simply that I don't choose to follow that dream.
Nobody, except the disabled, are born with a disadvantage. If I was born in the poorest slums in the poorest city in the poorest conditions and raised in that environment, it's up to ME and ME ONLY to get myself out of there. Put on my big boy pants and get to being a successful person.
Most millionaires don't go to college. I consider my family to be successful with over 20 million accrued in real estate. None of us went to college, I was raised in a trailer with family line of raging abusive alcoholics. They were dirt poor and drunk and beat us. I could have chosen that life. I had the OPPORTUNITY to be a victim, to blame everyone else but me, but, after my 2nd stint in prison, I decided that dealing drugs and looking for the quick score was only going to get me killed, so I chose to grow up, stop making excuses, go watch some Tony Robbins dvds and get on with my life.
Thank God I live in a country that didn't really care that I had a horrible upbringing, that I had made stupid choices, and lived like I wanted to die. In the end, no one really cares if you succeed or don't succeed, expect for maybe a few of your relatives and Facebook friends... "Oh that's a shame, heart attack? He was such a nice guy! "
So, go be you, make your own opportunities, and stop worrying about what people think about you and your performance. They don't care enough about you to stand in the way of your successes.
You bought into the propaganda and disinformation hook, line and sinker.
Federal law requires the 3% of businesses that are publicly-traded corporations to report the total compensation of CEOs.
The total compensation consists of both cash and non-cash benefits.
Few make any attempt to report cash only benefits, or actually break down the compensation into cash and non-cash benefits.
One instance where it was broken down and reported correctly was the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who received total compensation of $23 Million, but $16 Million was non-cash benefits, mostly stock options which are rigidly controlled by federal law, and $7 Million in cash.
Um, that was the 1960s.
Apparently, you don't understand this is 2019.
And, apparently, you don't understand that in the 1960s, there were few multi-national corporations, and CEOs were recruited regionally.
By the 1970s, CEOs were recruited across the US, instead of regionally.
Then CEOs were recruited in the US and Canada.
And, then, the 5 English-speaking States.
And, finally, CEOs were recruited globally.
Apparently, you're not aware that a number of CEOs are foreign-born, and not US citizens.
You can attempt to restrict CEO compensation, but the only thing that will happen is US corporations will move their headquarters out of the US to States where they can pay CEOs the compensation the demand based on the Law of Supply & Demand.
You act like anyone can be a CEO, so why aren't you?
That's was a choice, not a necessity.
There's plenty of free federal financial aid, free State financial aid, and free university financial, not to mention the several $100 Million in free private financial aid.
There are literally hundreds of free private education grants for which only single mothers are eligible, just as there are hundreds for which only veterans are eligible, or only people of any status in a paralegal program, or legal assistant program, or administrative assistant program, and hundreds more for those seeking education or training in the medical field and other many other fields.
If they're too damn lazy to fill out an application for those free grants, that's not my problem.
They do get free grants. They get those free grants filling out the same financial aid form they fill out for the loans. The grants often don't cover everything. College is expensive. I owe over $165k in student loans and I got all the grants I was eligible to get.
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.
" 
