[timberline742]

Japan is in great shape, despite the demographics. If anything, its helping them. Productivity is increasing, as is the QOL. The contraction of population is actually helping them a great deal if one wants to get into the weeds.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Japan is in great shape, despite the demographics. If anything, its helping them. Productivity is increasing, as is the QOL. The contraction of population is actually helping them a great deal if one wants to get into the weeds.

Wow! Where did you get that from? I realize it's Vermont but, I mean, really? Aging and shrinking populations are an enormous issue.

Here is a recent article in The Economist. I subscribe but I think everybody can read this one:
Japan's demography: The incredible shrinking country | The Economist

[LEFT]Japan’s demographic dilemma grows more urgent by the year. Last week the government passed the nation’s largest-ever budget—a mammoth $937-billion package swelled by welfare and pension spending. Japan is already weighed down by one of the world’s largest public debt burdens. With its inverted population pyramid, where will it find the tax base to repay this debt, and to care for its growing population of elderly?

[/LEFT]
The 2012 government report said that without policy change, by 2110 the number of Japanese could fall to 42.9m, ie just a third of its current population.

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by cgregor

So, what portion of their income do other people pay in property and income taxes? My federal and state income taxes plus Vermont property taxes are 25% of my income-- and I still have $12,000 annually left over after those plus living expenses. How about others' experiences?

Before answering, I would like to comment that it is nice to see the Burlington Free Press is still the same BS piece of parakeet cage liner that it always was. (And they say that nothing ever stays the same...) I note that they are still directing their reporters to eat fairy dust and poo out tinkerbells.

Too bad they never read Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

As an ex-pat Vermonter, I will rephrase your question, so that the import of it becomes more obvious.
"To live in Vermont, I am forced to labor for 1/4 of my time simply to pay the taxes that allow me to live in Vermont. Essentially, from January 1st to April 1st, I might as well be on work release from prison to earn my "right" to live in the state."

What happens to you if you cannot work for six months because of an illness? For that matter, what happens when your income dips down by $12,001 in a year? Do you scoff at Micawber and say that everything will be alright?

To answer your question, my Fed and state income tax AND property tax in Alabama are more like 2% total. I do pay some corporate taxes (self-employed), have a lower income, and some income is (untaxed) social security, and seniors don't pay property tax here, so if you came to Alabama "your mileage may vary."

Vermont is a hamster wheel with a lot of cold exhausted hamsters. You can work more and have more taken from you or you can walk out of the open door to that hamster cage and find one where you are treated better.

It isn't the gross dollars coming into your wallet that matter - it never has been that. It is the dollars that stay in your wallet after it has been Hoovered by Federal, State, County, and Municipal governments, along with the shaking by insurance companies, sales taxes, HOA fees, and recurring costs of survival. If you earn a million dollars a year in Vermont and end up with $5,000 in your pocket, and a ditch digger in Mississippi earns $12,000 and ends up with $6,000 in his pocket, I submit to you that he may be smarter.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Wow! Where did you get that from? I realize it's Vermont but, I mean, really? Aging and shrinking populations are an enormous issue.

Here is a recent article in The Economist. I subscribe but I think everybody can read this one:
Japan's demography: The incredible shrinking country | The Economist

There are lots of pieces out there on how Japan's situation is not that bad, and actually, pretty good.

This is a more balanced editorial:

http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/04...onomic-decline

Their employment rate is good, their productivity high, and their quality of life very high and getting higher. It's somewhat well covered in economic journals and pop pieces.

The notion that populations need to keep growing to support the pyramid is become antiquated, as it is well known it is not sustainable. Different measures are being used not to determine success.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by timberline742

There are lots of pieces out there on how Japan's situation is not that bad, and actually, pretty good.

This is a more balanced editorial:

The Truth About Japan

Their employment rate is good, their productivity high, and their quality of life very high and getting higher. It's somewhat well covered in economic journals and pop pieces.

The notion that populations need to keep growing to support the pyramid is become antiquated, as it is well known it is not sustainable. Different measures are being used not to determine success.

Aaah... An article that says "it's not too bad today". Fine contribution to the discussion.

Japan projects to have 1/3 the population they have today 100 years from now. The ride down is going to be disastrous given their aging demographics. They've been bumping along for the last 20 years kicking a banking crisis and commercial property crisis under the carpet. They have a staggeringly enormous debt problem that makes the gold bugs in the US look Pollyanna-esque. Japan national debt is 240% of GDP. And you thought Greece was bad.

Balanced? That's funny!

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

Aaah... An article that says "it's not too bad today". Fine contribution to the discussion.

Japan projects to have 1/3 the population they have today 100 years from now. The ride down is going to be disastrous given their aging demographics. They've been bumping along for the last 20 years kicking a banking crisis and commercial property crisis under the carpet. They have a staggeringly enormous debt problem that makes the gold bugs in the US look Pollyanna-esque. Japan national debt is 240% of GDP. And you thought Greece was bad.

Balanced? That's funny!

That was a middle of the road article, as I stated. I posted a moderate editorial. Heavens forbid someone tries to post something moderate here, I guess you're one of those that only believes in posting polarizing pieces that flame debates. I'm not one of those.

There are others that sing the praises of how Japan is actually doing it right. But hey, if you want to continue to buy into you need to grow to prosper idea, go ahead. It will always fail, its a pyramid game. Smaller populations, with higher productivity, and a higher quality of life, is the way to go. That's common sense.

[harry chickpea]

"Smaller populations, with higher productivity, and a higher quality of life, is the way to go. That's common sense."

I think you may have fallen into the trap of accepting labor (mental or physical) as a prerequisite for happiness. "Productivity" has zero direct correlation to quality of life. Switzerland and Australia rank highest on "quality of life" scales, while China - arguably the most currently productive country falls around fiftieth, and the U.S. in the high teens.

The myth of greater labor or productivity leading to greater happiness has been around for centuries. Greater labor and productivity does equal greater happiness for those who would leech off the fruits of that labor, but when the drain from the leeches is equal to or greater than the gains, then it is wiser to STOP being productive.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by cgregor

Second home owners (and third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth- and seventh as well) get tax breaks because we do not bestir ourselves to make the legislature do the right thing.

Where are these tax breaks? What are these tax breaks?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

"Smaller populations, with higher productivity, and a higher quality of life, is the way to go. That's common sense."

I think you may have fallen into the trap of accepting labor (mental or physical) as a prerequisite for happiness. "Productivity" has zero direct correlation to quality of life. Switzerland and Australia rank highest on "quality of life" scales, while China - arguably the most currently productive country falls around fiftieth, and the U.S. in the high teens.

The myth of greater labor or productivity leading to greater happiness has been around for centuries. Greater labor and productivity does equal greater happiness for those who would leech off the fruits of that labor, but when the drain from the leeches is equal to or greater than the gains, then it is wiser to STOP being productive.

Productivity, not overall, but per capita (which is what I was getting at) can lead to a higher quality of life, absolutely it can. Sure, the distribution of the production is an issue, but there is still a correlation (and indeed, a causal factor).

If a population shrinks, but the per capita productivity increases (even if overall productivity decreases), as does the quality of life (as is happening in Japan), that is a good thing.

[cgregor]

Vermont's per capita productivity-- measured in the state equivalent of GDP, SDP-- is greater than France's, yet France has a higher quality of life. Per capita productivity, as you point out, might lead to a higher quality of life, but it is not by any means a certainty.

I think that perhaps Japan is going to prove that one major economic truism-- that expansion is necessary for a sound economy-- is false.