Discussion in 'General World Topics' started by SharkBait, Jun 19, 2015.
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Pretty soon the US will turn into Gilead from Handmaid's Tale.
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
It is interesting the gov't leaders are swift to move on the separation of families at the borders issue, while gun control measures received a slower/nonexistent response. Though I guess time will tell on what sort of bandage will be applied and for what for border related concerns.
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
In case you guys wonder why I blame Trump and his supporters for dividing this country
What a weird post, as Trump hasnt done anything of note. His white house has been in shambles, with only Sarah Sanders managing to make him not appear to be aloof and disillusioned, really she continues to be an admirable trooper managing to trudge the trenches, he should be grateful to her. Perhaps the only thing he has done in the best of interest for americans are the short term effects of tax cuts, but many dont really benefit most americans in the long term.
I guess the only thing of note at the end of the day, are his picks for the highest court in the land
Its kind of sad that even in the current climate, the other party has failed to unite under one goal and seem to be divided amongst what they want. Poor Mr. Sanders and the winner from one of the new york races, facing an uphill battle among washington insiders.
Tax cuts benefit no one but businesses. But then again, I'm not a fan of how republicans seem to suck on businesses' teats and let them hurt the country.
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Tax cuts that expire for everyone but businesses are bad... not all tax cuts.
But wouldn't less taxes hurt the infrastructure and everything if there's less in the treasury to pay for them?
But then, I believe in the RADICAL idea that we should increase taxes on the wealthy.
Yes, less tax revenue is bad for infrastructure and services.
In Canada, the wealthy are taxed higher but they find loopholes to work around it.Economists suggest increasing sales tax is better than income tax because it's based on consumption and wealthy people spend more.
The issue with a sales tax is that it would still hit poorer people harder. If you live on a budget a substantial portion, if not all, of what you spend will be subjected to a sales tax then your bottom line is hit pretty hard. On the other hand, yes, wealthier people spend more but since they are wealthy they don't necessarily spend all of their income every month. They get to save money or invest it and obviously none of that would pay a sales tax. Which I would argue is unfair for particularly poor people who are on a budget and do have to pay a sales tax over virtually everything they consume. I am not specifically against a sales tax BUT it is not something a country can solely rely on to get its much needed tax money to pay for streets, education, health care... Income tax makes sense, what is lacking here is simply governments which make honest attempts at tackling loopholes so that everyone pays what they should.
Besides, for a country to gather what it needs from a sales tax assuming there is no income tax then logically it would have to substantially raise the sales tax... Imagine being on a budget and having to pay several times the sales tax you already do. I don't see how a sales tax model only would be anything less than draconian on the poor.
Are those economists dumb? All that does is hurt the poor. Better to increase income tax on the wealthy and take away tax cuts from them and most businesses.
Sales tax only would be a stupid model for revenue but for taxing non necessities (not food, dipers, children's clothing etc.) is a quite fair compared to increasing income taxes for everyone. Poverty in the US is mainly because there is a lack of free healthcare and education. If there are more taxes to supply these for everyone, the poor could survive.
Taxing small businesses doesn't allow them to compete with the larger ones and larger businesses exploit loopholes or move to another country with less taxes.
More taxes = more $$$ for social programs for the poor. In Scandinavian countries their taxes are high but they have less expenses with tuition, transportation and healthcare. Here in Canada, yes the sales tax is high but if I go to the hospital it's covered unless I want a private room. If it was just income tax, there would be less disposable income to spend money. With taxing non necessities, people choose to buy an item; thus the taxing is less forced.
By most businesses, I mean that we don't tax small businesses.
And larger businesses already do that, no? We could at least try to close those loopholes and make it harder for the companies to either move to other countries or to get their stuff here with tariffs and etc.
Well then, you'd have to determine what would be taxable and what wouldn't, as a lot of food items can be taxed if served hot, apparently, among other stuff. Dunno if it's like that out of US though.
Businesses operate based on money. The only way to prevent them from moving is to have lower barriers, such as taxes. Low tariffs also work but Trump seems to ignore that and companies that export from the US are suffering from his illogical decisions.
有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity
European taxes tend to be more regressive than US taxes but they offset this fact by virtue of having more efficient welfare states. (European welfare states are not really so much larger than the American one.)
Countries with "high taxes" tend to be pretty good at keeping people employed. In recent years, European countries have done a much better job than we have of preserving and creating jobs. This fact is best illustrated by the employment/population ratio—the percentage of people with jobs in the population. In 2013, most European welfare states had ratios of more than 80% for those in their prime working years, while the US ratio was barely above 75%.
One reason for this is that European companies are not burdened with the enormous cost of providing health insurance for their workers, as American employers are. That cost is financed by broad-based consumption taxes that do not fall on businesses. Moreover, the VAT is rebated at the border on exports, so that the tax does not raise the price of exports. These two factors make European exporters very competitive relative to those in the United States, where many taxes such as the corporate tax cannot be rebated and therefore reduce international competitiveness.
Not having to provide health insurance also makes it much easier to start and grow businesses in many welfare states. The fact that entrepreneurs receive valuable services for their taxes makes them much less sensitive to them than Americans are. A recent article in Inc. magazine about booming entrepreneurship in heavily taxed Norway made this point:
In the US, workers are forced to bear all of the burden of economic adjustment through layoffs and unemployment when there is a recession, even as Republicans contend that all recessions are caused by the Federal Reserve or government screw-ups. European countries, by contrast, have been highly successful with short-time schemes that allow workers to reduce work hours while subsidizing their pay. These allow businesses to hold on to valuable workers and prevent their skills from deteriorating, and also makes it much easier to ramp up production when growth is restored. And wage subsidies are a powerful means of fiscal stimulus. Many analysts have testified to the efficiency of this system and urged its adoption in the United States even though it would involve “big government.”
In addition to wage subsidies, the European welfare state facilitates labor adjustment when necessary. And an important part of the welfare state in Europe involves strong support for education. Germany, for example, recently abolished college tuition. By contrast, American college students must often go deeply into debt just to get an education. High education and skill levels plus wage compression that is augmented by government benefits combine to offset the negative economic effects of the welfare state in Europe to a large extent (see here, here, here, and here).
Most European countries have higher income taxes but their corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the US. The EU average is under 20% compared to the US at 27 (40% in 2017).
Keep in mind youth unemployment in Europe is still an issue, especially in Spain. I do agree free education and health care from higher consumer taxes and moderate income taxes would benefit the US but it shouldn't be solely on the opinion of taxing the wealthy and large businesses.
You are aware of the importance of tax loopholes, yes? You have to look at the effective tax rate. If you do, then you'll find out the US tax rate is much lower than advertised. For example, in 2016 the US Treasury Dept. calculated that the tax rate for corporations was about 22%.
Yes, youth unemployment has been a disaster all throughout Europe. The big problem though with Europe right now is the Euro, which is backed by political leadership hellbent on inflicting austerity on the masses in the name of "fiscal responsibility". Spain's housing bubble would have been nowhere near as bad if it had the means of combating recessions as we do in the US and Canada.
That problem can hardly be only attributed to asuterity tho.
Spain and Italy have the means to get better. And when there was no austerity policy on the horizon, they didn't exactly combat the growing problems they had, too.
The problem is a political one. There need to be reforms. That has nothing to do with austerity.
You cannot compare these countries to the US in that regard. Even if Spain and Italy pushed severe reforms, the countries would still not be as liberal employment policy wise as the US is.
Sorry for butting in, but as a Brazillian, let me tell yah people something.
Don´t tax your people, unless you are a small country (like the Europeans one).
It only creates corruption, makes the poor pay more, and the richer pay less: as it was said, they more often than not find loopholes. Or worse, the "richer" in a country with huge disparity like mine also include, to some politicians, the middle class. Which means that not only the lower classes get screwed over, but also the middle, with the high class keeping thing as it is.
The idea of "We all pay a little so that everyone can have everything" IS nice, and if done well can and will work, however as a guy who lives in a place where it just doesn´t work, I have to say I´d prefer if we never even started it.
Even if all I said does not make you think twice, then ask yourself this.
Do you trust your governament to run business with your and other peoples money?
And also something else that has been happening here in Brazil in the last years
Tax= Money from the people= Money from business, small and large. What happens when the economy goes bad and there is no more money for the basic services like health and education?
Sure I can´t speak much, having lived my whole live here, and only just visiting other countries.
However, the pasture from you guys sure seens greener than mine
(tho to be fair, USA and Europe did fuck u p most of the world trough the 1800-2000 to get where they are now)
Question, why does bernie sanders call himself a democratic socialist? none of the policies I have seen him support actually include government taking control of means of production or anything that the word "socialist" generally entails. Why not just call himself a social democrat? A label more consistent with his positions?
find ways to make it more expensive for them to move out or export to US?