Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,361
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 4, 2021 13:45:08 GMT -5
Exactly. I would love to be paying a billion dollars each year in taxes, because that would mean I was keeping at least two billion. It would still be a game of course, although the game would change to then trying to cut it to half a billion in taxes. At some level of income (and owning stuff) doesn't it become a question of what is enough? And there is the "status" thing... a bigger, shinier, more exclusive whatever says status in ways that other things do not. Perhaps this conversation comes down to what obligations/duties do we humans have towards other humans? Is it only about "me" and my "family"? Is the lot you are born into your lot for life?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,131
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 4, 2021 14:04:40 GMT -5
I would point out that merely raising everyone's pay does not mean that folks on the bottom will be ahead for long. Are we really only talking about people at the bottom? What kinds of jobs that provide health care or other perks (paid time off, guaranteed 40/35 hour work week) are in the $15 to $20 per hour range? $15 at 2080 hours is $31,200.00 $20 at 2080 is $41,600.00 Things like paid time off and healthcare are generally an employer's expense (which they may pass down to their employees). Would providing some sort of "government" payout to employers to give their hourly (or salaried at some level of pay) employees paid time off or to provide some sort of standard healthcare benefit change the financial lives of people who will hold such jobs for years on end? The hourly employees pay per hour wouldn't necessarily change. Is that "welfare"? Would something like that benefit higher income workers in some intangible way? Various studies and articles suggest that nearly half of all Americans work at low-wage jobs. Even that is not the whole story. If you were working at even a mid-level wage because you were more qualified and more diligent than others, and suddenly the people below you were raised closer to your level through no effort of their own, how would you feel? You would deserve more, because psychologically it is not the absolute number that is likely important to you but the difference between you and those below you. The difference that you EARNED. A raise in minimum wage does not merely affect those subject to it. Those raises are echoed up the salary scale to keep the relative hierarchy in place. This is not a simple question, and the solutions are far from simple. Raising the minimum wage is a simplistic response, and simplistic ideas rarely work as intended. Not to even mention the vast differences between different areas of the country, where $15/hour is far more than necessary in some areas and far less than necessary in others. Also, if you are going to start demanding even more from "government" in fixing this, you are then headed toward the higher tax rates of other countries in order to pay for it. And aren't people complaining now that government has to step in and pay benefits to workers at Wal-Mart, for one? I would also suggest as I have done many times that health care should NEVER have been part of employment. It only came into being that way because somebody figured it was a good way to dodge wage and price controls in World War II, and spread rapidly from there. It was never a good way to handle the issue, and we would be far better off as a whole if health care were separated from employment.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 4, 2021 14:22:04 GMT -5
I saw something on Twitter earlier today - AOC pointed out that McDonald's in Finland (I think) paid workers $22/hr. Not $15, but $22. A Big Mac was only $.35 more in that country vs in the US. Objections were raised that that country doesn't have a minimum wage. But they do have essentially universal union representation. So not only do they receive a decent wage, they also have 6 weeks of vacation, health insurance, paid family leave... So please explain to me again why the US can't also do this. Because we don't pay half or more of our salaries to the taxman? Let's break this down to its parts. The $22/hr is paid by the employer. Taxes not relevant here. Vacation time - is this paid by employer, or govt? Health insurance - I'm assuming this is supplied by govt in Denmark. May be covered by employer in US, may be partially paid by earner if employer requires, may be fully paid by earner if they have to buy on open market, or may be partially/fully paid by govt if income eligible for ACA/Medicaid. So Paid family leave - Assuming govt supplied in Denmark. Paid leave doesn't exist in US, unless an employer offers it (rare at minimum wage level), or at some state govt level like NY (employees pay a tiny payroll tax). Health insurance is the biggie here. Well paying employers include it in benefits. Low wage employers often don't, so govt is picking up the slack with the ACA. Low wage earners are thus already getting govt tax funded health insurance.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,131
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 4, 2021 14:23:22 GMT -5
Exactly. I would love to be paying a billion dollars each year in taxes, because that would mean I was keeping at least two billion. It would still be a game of course, although the game would change to then trying to cut it to half a billion in taxes. At some level of income (and owning stuff) doesn't it become a question of what is enough? And there is the "status" thing... a bigger, shinier, more exclusive whatever says status in ways that other things do not. Perhaps this conversation comes down to what obligations/duties do we humans have towards other humans? Is it only about "me" and my "family"? Is the lot you are born into your lot for life? I am arguing in the abstract here, because I personally do NOTHING for or because of "status." My needs are few, and my spending is low, simply because I don't need to do it and have never been one to spend just because I could. I have everything I need and most of what I want, and even the things I do want I don't want enough to actually pay for them. So yes, I do understand, "What is enough?" Money will never define who I am. I doubt I could even spend $100,000 per year on an ongoing basis. Fix up my house and travel, sure, but at that level every year? Not a chance. Even winning a lottery at this point would be wasted on me!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,131
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 4, 2021 14:35:14 GMT -5
Because we don't pay half or more of our salaries to the taxman? Let's break this down to its parts. The $22/hr is paid by the employer. Taxes not relevant here.Vacation time - is this paid by employer, or govt? Health insurance - I'm assuming this is supplied by govt in Denmark. May be covered by employer in US, may be partially paid by earner if employer requires, may be fully paid by earner if they have to buy on open market, or may be partially/fully paid by govt if income eligible for ACA/Medicaid. So Paid family leave - Assuming govt supplied in Denmark. Paid leave doesn't exist in US, unless an employer offers it (rare at minimum wage level), or at some state govt level like NY (employees pay a tiny payroll tax). Health insurance is the biggie here. Well paying employers include it in benefits. Low wage employers often don't, so govt is picking up the slack with the ACA. Low wage earners are thus already getting govt tax funded health insurance. Why would you think that? Whether the employer is taxed or the workers are taxed, the government still ends up with the money. As the old saying goes, "It's not what you make, it's what you keep."
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 4, 2021 14:44:35 GMT -5
Are we really only talking about people at the bottom? What kinds of jobs that provide health care or other perks (paid time off, guaranteed 40/35 hour work week) are in the $15 to $20 per hour range? $15 at 2080 hours is $31,200.00 $20 at 2080 is $41,600.00 Things like paid time off and healthcare are generally an employer's expense (which they may pass down to their employees). Would providing some sort of "government" payout to employers to give their hourly (or salaried at some level of pay) employees paid time off or to provide some sort of standard healthcare benefit change the financial lives of people who will hold such jobs for years on end? The hourly employees pay per hour wouldn't necessarily change. Is that "welfare"? Would something like that benefit higher income workers in some intangible way? Various studies and articles suggest that nearly half of all Americans work at low-wage jobs. Even that is not the whole story. If you were working at even a mid-level wage because you were more qualified and more diligent than others, and suddenly the people below you were raised closer to your level through no effort of their own, how would you feel? You would deserve more, because psychologically it is not the absolute number that is likely important to you but the difference between you and those below you. The difference that you EARNED. A raise in minimum wage does not merely affect those subject to it. Those raises are echoed up the salary scale to keep the relative hierarchy in place. This is not a simple question, and the solutions are far from simple. Raising the minimum wage is a simplistic response, and simplistic ideas rarely work as intended. Not to even mention the vast differences between different areas of the country, where $15/hour is far more than necessary in some areas and far less than necessary in others. Also, if you are going to start demanding even more from "government" in fixing this, you are then headed toward the higher tax rates of other countries in order to pay for it. And aren't people complaining now that government has to step in and pay benefits to workers at Wal-Mart, for one? I would also suggest as I have done many times that health care should NEVER have been part of employment. It only came into being that way because somebody figured it was a good way to dodge wage and price controls in World War II, and spread rapidly from there. It was never a good way to handle the issue, and we would be far better off as a whole if health care were separated from employment. You know, I'm in this position right now. NY has been working towards $15/hr minimum for years, we are up to $12.50 now. My coworkers got raises each of the last two years, due to the minimum bumps, I got none. There's only so many dollars to go around, and Covid expenses at the state level pushed the governor to cut library funding even more than he usually tries to underfund it. It's not that I want to maintain the distance between us in pay, it's that they are getting something towards inflation pay increases, while I'm losing ground to inflation. My employer wouldn't have increased their pay if it weren't required. But I'm better off than the quarter of staff at Central that lost their jobs due to the cuts, I guess (different funding structure, hit them hard). Central immediately posted 3 replacement positions: $17.17/hr, 19 hrs max, zero benefits. That's more per hour than I make, but less total because fewer hours, still zero benefits.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 4, 2021 14:51:09 GMT -5
Let's break this down to its parts. The $22/hr is paid by the employer. Taxes not relevant here.Vacation time - is this paid by employer, or govt? Health insurance - I'm assuming this is supplied by govt in Denmark. May be covered by employer in US, may be partially paid by earner if employer requires, may be fully paid by earner if they have to buy on open market, or may be partially/fully paid by govt if income eligible for ACA/Medicaid. So Paid family leave - Assuming govt supplied in Denmark. Paid leave doesn't exist in US, unless an employer offers it (rare at minimum wage level), or at some state govt level like NY (employees pay a tiny payroll tax). Health insurance is the biggie here. Well paying employers include it in benefits. Low wage employers often don't, so govt is picking up the slack with the ACA. Low wage earners are thus already getting govt tax funded health insurance. Why would you think that? Whether the employer is taxed or the workers are taxed, the government still ends up with the money. As the old saying goes, "It's not what you make, it's what you keep." I think we are talking past one another, focused on different aspects. My original question was, why can't McDonald's (or other employers) pay $22/hr in the US? They do in Denmark. Your response about Americans not paying higher taxes isn't relevant here, because higher taxes aren't paying the wage. The employer is, willingly.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Mar 4, 2021 15:25:13 GMT -5
I had a friend who emigrated from Sweden. My friend was a dentist, a periodontist and had his PhD. I asked him why he was uprooting his family to come here. His comment to me was that he could work his ass off educating himself, to make more money....but the more money he earned, the higher the percentage of taxes he paid. He was paying 75% of his income in taxes when he came to the US. Those benefits don’t come free. I have a friend in Norway, which has a similar tax system, who is an engineer. He has similar attitude regarding their tax structure. So for the middle to upper middle class, college educated part of society, there is very little incentive to work hard and get ahead since so much of your extra income goes to taxes. Here in the U, we vilify the rich (Tax them!), yet we all want to be there. While I don't dispute that's your friend's experience, I work with a lot of educated and successful Norwegians and this is not their general attitude. They are aware that their tax rate is high - but if you add up all of our taxes, plus insurance/medical care, education and whatever % most of us are putting away for retirement because we won't get a pension from our employer, the difference is generally negligible. They are all covered by a government pension as well as an employer pension. Almost all the Norwegians I know have some kind of second home, or a nice boat they spend some of their abundant holiday time on, so they clearly aren't having all their $$ bled dry by the government. Minimum 6 weeks vacation. They don't stress over taking time off for vacations, or medical leave, or maternity, or life stuff. They tend to be a very happy and healthy bunch. Plus they're blond and thin! LOL There actually there are a lot of expats in our Norway offices as well - several of them Americans! The quality of life is great, if you don't mind the cold. ETA: I'd also like to point out that believing in a progressive tax system is not at all the same thing as vilifying anyone. Believing that corporations should pay taxes, and that they should pay enough that their full time employees aren't relying on other taxpayers for assistance is not vilifying either, though I do believe some of them are villains.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Mar 4, 2021 15:30:59 GMT -5
I have a friend in Norway, which has a similar tax system, who is an engineer. He has similar attitude regarding their tax structure. So for the middle to upper middle class, college educated part of society, there is very little incentive to work hard and get ahead since so much of your extra income goes to taxes. Here in the U, we vilify the rich (Tax them!), yet we all want to be there. While I don't dispute that's your friend's experience, I work with a lot of educated and successful Norwegians and this is not their general attitude. They are aware that their tax rate is high - but if you add up all of our taxes, plus insurance/medical care, education and whatever % most of us are putting away for retirement because we won't get a pension from our employer, the difference is generally negligible. They are all covered by a government pension as well as an employer pension. Almost all the Norwegians I know have some kind of second home, or a nice boat they spend some of their abundant holiday time on, so they clearly aren't having all their $$ bled dry by the government. Minimum 6 weeks vacation. They don't stress over taking time off for vacations, or medical leave, or maternity, or life stuff. They tend to be a very happy and healthy bunch. Plus they're blond and thin! LOL There actually there are a lot of expats in our Norway offices as well - several of them Americans! The quality of life is great, if you don't mind the cold. I’m sure they must be commies.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 4, 2021 16:46:29 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,031
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2021 19:25:08 GMT -5
the same could be said of the US, but it is kind of an inverse argument.
because anyone making over about $110k is not subject to SS tax in the US, the net effective rate actually declines in the 100-200k range before rising again to an asymptote at 37%. what is fucked up about the US is that we spend over 10% more on a GDP basis for our healthcare than the global average, for results that are inferior to many that are in the average or below average cost category. but that is not the grotesque part. the grotesque part is that this is part of the tax structure for other countries than ours. so we are comparing our taxes which don't include that amount to those that do. we need to "spot" other countries about 17%, if we want to get a realistic comparison. and when we do that, it puts us right up there with Sweden.
Then throw in education costs, too. Lower income Americans have outrageously high marginal tax rates, due to credit phaseouts. It's a hidden tax that few see. (Mine approaches 50% at places despite being in the 10% bracket.) It's also exacerbated by the paucity of 401ks accounts at employers in the lower income range. Having no workplace retirement option leaves lower income earners no way to control their w2 wages and AGI to increase credits like EITC - IRAs are useless for this, because IRA contributions can only reduce AGI, not w2 wages (EITC tests both). this is like the boiling frog, too. education USED to be free in the US.
so, what is happening? what is happening is that the cost of being here is continually rising for the bottom 50% relative to income (perversely, those who can least afford it), and continually falling for the top 50%. and that will break the virtuous cycle that has sustained the longest expansion in global history.
I think it is over for the US, because corporations now run things. that is the reason Trump was even able to compete, let alone win. in the 50's, he would have been bounced out and denounced for being a fat cat and a crook. now, he is a fucking celebrity.
if you want to MAGA, you need to fix that.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 5, 2021 10:30:12 GMT -5
this is like the boiling frog, too. education USED to be free in the US.
so, what is happening? what is happening is that the cost of being here is continually rising for the bottom 50% relative to income (perversely, those who can least afford it), and continually falling for the top 50%. and that will break the virtuous cycle that has sustained the longest expansion in global history.
I think it is over for the US, because corporations now run things. that is the reason Trump was even able to compete, let alone win. in the 50's, he would have been bounced out and denounced for being a fat cat and a crook. now, he is a fucking celebrity.
if you want to MAGA, you need to fix that.
All the talk about high tax rates in Denmark, etc, got me to googling it. That 55% number is the absolute max rate, a set ceiling. It includes all sorts of taxes: income tax, interest and capital gains tax, church tax, SS tax, pension tax, property tax, union dues/tax, VAT... Yes, the average Dane pays more on a similar income vs the average American's income tax. I'm not so sure there's a big gap after you add up federal tax, state tax, local tax, FICA, SUI, property tax, retirement savings (DIY pension), health insurance/HSA contributions + healthcare costs (provided free by govt in Denmark), college expenses/student loan payments (provided free by govt in Denmark + $900/mo for each student)... Another source I found in my search for tax info talked more about how Danes happily paid the high tax rates, because they figured they were getting good value from the transaction, for themselves and for their society in general. The focus was not on the money, or the cost, but on the happiness of the citizens. Having their bases covered (health, education, baseline income) made even the lowest income citizens less anxious about, well, everything, which equated to greater happiness. They studied the happiness issue, looking at other countries, too. Came to the conclusion that the upper half had enough resources that they would always be happy, so to raise the happiness of the country as a whole, the place to focus was on the lower half. Remove the economic stressors on the lower half, increase their happiness to match the upper half - maximizing the nation's happiness. It's a different paradigm. Americans feel the need to pursue more and more money (after tax) because we can see that we are losing ground to ourselves in past decades because of increasing expense categories like healthcare and education. We view taxes as another one of those increasing expense categories and reject the idea of even greater taxes, because we are afraid of falling even further behind. But it's creating this steep income and wealth distribution curve - most of us are in the lower portion (not really half, more like 90:10). And those in the upper portion are not paying their fair share - the tax code is stacked in their favor. Most of their income is not taxed at ordinary tax rates, it's investment income taxed at a lower LTCG rate. Denmark's investment income tax rates were 27% and 42%.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 5, 2021 10:58:43 GMT -5
The more I think about this, even at that 55% max tax rate, we'd have more take home pay under Denmark's system than we do under our current one, precisely because we are saving heavily to retirement (no state pension) and HSA + HI contributions (no free healthcare) and we have students with loans (no free college + student monthly stipend). And we already arrange our AGI to receive negative taxes plus college grants and scholarships.
Let me say that again: 55% Denmark taxes plus socialized benefits would leave us more discretionary income than negative US taxes with no pension, free market healthcare (even mostly paid by employer), free market college costs (even mostly already covered by grants/scholarships).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,031
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 5, 2021 11:47:33 GMT -5
I think the 'anger' about raising the minimum wage to $15 is this: At $15.00 an hour: $31,200 a year. That 31K per year is often a SALARIED job with benefits. I can see how someone with a 35K or 40K salaried income (with benefits) might feel threatened by a $15 an hour minimum wage (with no benefits). It might feel like the salaried worker is "working for minimum wage themselves". I think employers need to be more transparent about the benefits (and the costs of those benefits) to their salaried employees. I think every worker needs get a little more savvy about the tax codes and the costs that employers pay. Not making the paying employer the "hero" - but in order to actually KNOW if one's employer is generous or stingy. If you can't compare or you have no idea you don't know.... the standards for salary are 2x MW in most states, so this is precisely right.
if you are suggesting their benefits might be under attack, I think that is probably right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,031
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 5, 2021 11:50:40 GMT -5
this is like the boiling frog, too. education USED to be free in the US.
so, what is happening? what is happening is that the cost of being here is continually rising for the bottom 50% relative to income (perversely, those who can least afford it), and continually falling for the top 50%. and that will break the virtuous cycle that has sustained the longest expansion in global history.
I think it is over for the US, because corporations now run things. that is the reason Trump was even able to compete, let alone win. in the 50's, he would have been bounced out and denounced for being a fat cat and a crook. now, he is a fucking celebrity.
if you want to MAGA, you need to fix that.
All the talk about high tax rates in Denmark, etc, got me to googling it. That 55% number is the absolute max rate, a set ceiling. It includes all sorts of taxes: income tax, interest and capital gains tax, church tax, SS tax, pension tax, property tax, union dues/tax, VAT... Yes, the average Dane pays more on a similar income vs the average American's income tax. I'm not so sure there's a big gap after you add up federal tax, state tax, local tax, FICA, SUI, property tax, retirement savings (DIY pension), health insurance/HSA contributions + healthcare costs (provided free by govt in Denmark), college expenses/student loan payments (provided free by govt in Denmark + $900/mo for each student)... I think we need to look at our "freedom" to pay for our own healthcare and education as a tax, as well. most Americans don't do that, tho.
I was going to call that 75% bullshit, because I think it is. that figure is arrived at by, as you say, paying every tax at the highest rate. but who does that? nobody.
|
|
hurley1980
Well-Known Member
I am all that is wrong with the world....don't get too close, I'm contagious.
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Posts: 1,942
|
Post by hurley1980 on Mar 5, 2021 12:21:18 GMT -5
The more I think about this, even at that 55% max tax rate, we'd have more take home pay under Denmark's system than we do under our current one, precisely because we are saving heavily to retirement (no state pension) and HSA + HI contributions (no free healthcare) and we have students with loans (no free college + student monthly stipend). And we already arrange our AGI to receive negative taxes plus college grants and scholarships. Let me say that again: 55% Denmark taxes plus socialized benefits would leave us more discretionary income than negative US taxes with no pension, free market healthcare (even mostly paid by employer), free market college costs (even mostly already covered by grants/scholarships). After all of my taxes, medical, and retirement is taken out of my paycheck, I take home approximately 63% of my pay. I'm not sure I would be happy taking home only 45%. I really guess it would depend on what I was getting out of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,031
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 5, 2021 12:45:21 GMT -5
The more I think about this, even at that 55% max tax rate, we'd have more take home pay under Denmark's system than we do under our current one, precisely because we are saving heavily to retirement (no state pension) and HSA + HI contributions (no free healthcare) and we have students with loans (no free college + student monthly stipend). And we already arrange our AGI to receive negative taxes plus college grants and scholarships. Let me say that again: 55% Denmark taxes plus socialized benefits would leave us more discretionary income than negative US taxes with no pension, free market healthcare (even mostly paid by employer), free market college costs (even mostly already covered by grants/scholarships). After all of my taxes, medical, and retirement is taken out of my paycheck, I take home approximately 63% of my pay. I'm not sure I would be happy taking home only 45%. I really guess it would depend on what I was getting out of it. I think the problem is that people don't see the benefit of free medical care until they need it.
but consider what you get in a place like that. not only do you get free medical, but you get paid leave, paid childcare, and highly subsidized education. the federal minimum wage there is $12/hr. cost of living is also significantly lower. so, your take=home pay goes farther. oh, and the climate and food are better than here.
I think the focus on taxes is kinda stupid without taking all of this other stuff into account.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 5, 2021 13:34:27 GMT -5
After all of my taxes, medical, and retirement is taken out of my paycheck, I take home approximately 63% of my pay. I'm not sure I would be happy taking home only 45%. I really guess it would depend on what I was getting out of it. I think the problem is that people don't see the benefit of free medical care until they need it.
but consider what you get in a place like that. not only do you get free medical, but you get paid leave, paid childcare, and highly subsidized education. the federal minimum wage there is $12/hr. cost of living is also significantly lower. so, your take=home pay goes farther. oh, and the climate and food are better than here.
I think the focus on taxes is kinda stupid without taking all of this other stuff into account.
I think that's a big problem. People just see less money in their pocket, but think all their expenses would stay the same so it seems like a bad idea.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,031
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 5, 2021 13:49:26 GMT -5
I think the problem is that people don't see the benefit of free medical care until they need it.
but consider what you get in a place like that. not only do you get free medical, but you get paid leave, paid childcare, and highly subsidized education. the federal minimum wage there is $12/hr. cost of living is also significantly lower. so, your take=home pay goes farther. oh, and the climate and food are better than here.
I think the focus on taxes is kinda stupid without taking all of this other stuff into account.
I think that's a big problem. People just see less money in their pocket, but think all their expenses would stay the same so it seems like a bad idea. exactly.
Costa Rica is roughly 2/3 the cost of living in the US, for a higher level of benefits (national healthcare is less than $100 per month there if you not a CR citizen).
their paid leave law there is vastly superior to the US for workers. you are given 1 week per year of service, and start at something like 1 month, up to 10 years. so, at 10 years, you get 3 months paid leave. food and housing are way cheaper.
this insular way of looking at things is not to our benefit at all. it only benefits the major corporations that run the country.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 7, 2021 19:37:11 GMT -5
this is like the boiling frog, too. education USED to be free in the US.
so, what is happening? what is happening is that the cost of being here is continually rising for the bottom 50% relative to income (perversely, those who can least afford it), and continually falling for the top 50%. and that will break the virtuous cycle that has sustained the longest expansion in global history.
I think it is over for the US, because corporations now run things. that is the reason Trump was even able to compete, let alone win. in the 50's, he would have been bounced out and denounced for being a fat cat and a crook. now, he is a fucking celebrity.
if you want to MAGA, you need to fix that.
All the talk about high tax rates in Denmark, etc, got me to googling it. That 55% number is the absolute max rate, a set ceiling. It includes all sorts of taxes: income tax, interest and capital gains tax, church tax, SS tax, pension tax, property tax, union dues/tax, VAT... Yes, the average Dane pays more on a similar income vs the average American's income tax. I'm not so sure there's a big gap after you add up federal tax, state tax, local tax, FICA, SUI, property tax, retirement savings (DIY pension), health insurance/HSA contributions + healthcare costs (provided free by govt in Denmark), college expenses/student loan payments (provided free by govt in Denmark + $900/mo for each student)... Another source I found in my search for tax info talked more about how Danes happily paid the high tax rates, because they figured they were getting good value from the transaction, for themselves and for their society in general. The focus was not on the money, or the cost, but on the happiness of the citizens. Having their bases covered (health, education, baseline income) made even the lowest income citizens less anxious about, well, everything, which equated to greater happiness. They studied the happiness issue, looking at other countries, too. Came to the conclusion that the upper half had enough resources that they would always be happy, so to raise the happiness of the country as a whole, the place to focus was on the lower half. Remove the economic stressors on the lower half, increase their happiness to match the upper half - maximizing the nation's happiness. It's a different paradigm. Americans feel the need to pursue more and more money (after tax) because we can see that we are losing ground to ourselves in past decades because of increasing expense categories like healthcare and education. We view taxes as another one of those increasing expense categories and reject the idea of even greater taxes, because we are afraid of falling even further behind. But it's creating this steep income and wealth distribution curve - most of us are in the lower portion (not really half, more like 90:10). And those in the upper portion are not paying their fair share - the tax code is stacked in their favor. Most of their income is not taxed at ordinary tax rates, it's investment income taxed at a lower LTCG rate. Denmark's investment income tax rates were 27% and 42%. no property taxes? sign me up. I think property taxes are the worst tax ever.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 7, 2021 19:39:29 GMT -5
I think that's a big problem. People just see less money in their pocket, but think all their expenses would stay the same so it seems like a bad idea. exactly.
Costa Rica is roughly 2/3 the cost of living in the US, for a higher level of benefits (national healthcare is less than $100 per month there if you not a CR citizen).
their paid leave law there is vastly superior to the US for workers. you are given 1 week per year of service, and start at something like 1 month, up to 10 years. so, at 10 years, you get 3 months paid leave. food and housing are way cheaper.
this insular way of looking at things is not to our benefit at all. it only benefits the major corporations that run the country.
that's why america is so unhealthy - everyone stressed and working all the time.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,037
Member is Online
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 7, 2021 20:15:12 GMT -5
All the talk about high tax rates in Denmark, etc, got me to googling it. That 55% number is the absolute max rate, a set ceiling. It includes all sorts of taxes: income tax, interest and capital gains tax, church tax, SS tax, pension tax, property tax, union dues/tax, VAT... Yes, the average Dane pays more on a similar income vs the average American's income tax. I'm not so sure there's a big gap after you add up federal tax, state tax, local tax, FICA, SUI, property tax, retirement savings (DIY pension), health insurance/HSA contributions + healthcare costs (provided free by govt in Denmark), college expenses/student loan payments (provided free by govt in Denmark + $900/mo for each student)... Another source I found in my search for tax info talked more about how Danes happily paid the high tax rates, because they figured they were getting good value from the transaction, for themselves and for their society in general. The focus was not on the money, or the cost, but on the happiness of the citizens. Having their bases covered (health, education, baseline income) made even the lowest income citizens less anxious about, well, everything, which equated to greater happiness. They studied the happiness issue, looking at other countries, too. Came to the conclusion that the upper half had enough resources that they would always be happy, so to raise the happiness of the country as a whole, the place to focus was on the lower half. Remove the economic stressors on the lower half, increase their happiness to match the upper half - maximizing the nation's happiness. It's a different paradigm. Americans feel the need to pursue more and more money (after tax) because we can see that we are losing ground to ourselves in past decades because of increasing expense categories like healthcare and education. We view taxes as another one of those increasing expense categories and reject the idea of even greater taxes, because we are afraid of falling even further behind. But it's creating this steep income and wealth distribution curve - most of us are in the lower portion (not really half, more like 90:10). And those in the upper portion are not paying their fair share - the tax code is stacked in their favor. Most of their income is not taxed at ordinary tax rates, it's investment income taxed at a lower LTCG rate. Denmark's investment income tax rates were 27% and 42%. no property taxes? sign me up. I think property taxes are the worst tax ever. More that property taxes seemed to be rolled into the whole Danish tax system. No idea how its all figured out, but the list of tax rates lumped property taxes in with income and investment and church! taxes for one big max-out-at-55% tax rate. If we included property taxes and every other tax and paid them on one bill rather than the death by a thousand cuts US system (and treated the cost of healthcare and college as indirect taxes) - would you come out ahead paying 55% of gross income? I was shocked to realise I would.
|
|
pooks
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2017 16:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 626
Today's Mood: Angry
|
Post by pooks on Mar 8, 2021 14:17:24 GMT -5
If I roll Fed, State, FICA, Medical insurance, property taxes, college savings, and 401K savings all together, they total about 51%. Additionally, Dh's company pays 2/3 of the medical insurance premiums and matches 10% of salary in the 401K. It is such a shell game of who is paying for what and multiple different taxes, I would take a max of 55% with guaranteed health insurance and a better quality of life for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 8, 2021 21:13:35 GMT -5
All the talk about high tax rates in Denmark, etc, got me to googling it. That 55% number is the absolute max rate, a set ceiling. It includes all sorts of taxes: income tax, interest and capital gains tax, church tax, SS tax, pension tax, property tax, union dues/tax, VAT... Yes, the average Dane pays more on a similar income vs the average American's income tax. I'm not so sure there's a big gap after you add up federal tax, state tax, local tax, FICA, SUI, property tax, retirement savings (DIY pension), health insurance/HSA contributions + healthcare costs (provided free by govt in Denmark), college expenses/student loan payments (provided free by govt in Denmark + $900/mo for each student)... Another source I found in my search for tax info talked more about how Danes happily paid the high tax rates, because they figured they were getting good value from the transaction, for themselves and for their society in general. The focus was not on the money, or the cost, but on the happiness of the citizens. Having their bases covered (health, education, baseline income) made even the lowest income citizens less anxious about, well, everything, which equated to greater happiness. They studied the happiness issue, looking at other countries, too. Came to the conclusion that the upper half had enough resources that they would always be happy, so to raise the happiness of the country as a whole, the place to focus was on the lower half. Remove the economic stressors on the lower half, increase their happiness to match the upper half - maximizing the nation's happiness. It's a different paradigm. Americans feel the need to pursue more and more money (after tax) because we can see that we are losing ground to ourselves in past decades because of increasing expense categories like healthcare and education. We view taxes as another one of those increasing expense categories and reject the idea of even greater taxes, because we are afraid of falling even further behind. But it's creating this steep income and wealth distribution curve - most of us are in the lower portion (not really half, more like 90:10). And those in the upper portion are not paying their fair share - the tax code is stacked in their favor. Most of their income is not taxed at ordinary tax rates, it's investment income taxed at a lower LTCG rate. Denmark's investment income tax rates were 27% and 42%. no property taxes? sign me up. I think property taxes are the worst tax ever. 1% of your assessed property value up to €408k, then 3%. www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/dk/Documents/tax/Downloads/Deloitte-Working-living-in-Denmark-2020.pdf
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,018
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 8, 2021 21:17:13 GMT -5
no property taxes? sign me up. I think property taxes are the worst tax ever. More that property taxes seemed to be rolled into the whole Danish tax system. No idea how its all figured out, but the list of tax rates lumped property taxes in with income and investment and church! taxes for one big max-out-at-55% tax rate. If we included property taxes and every other tax and paid them on one bill rather than the death by a thousand cuts US system (and treated the cost of healthcare and college as indirect taxes) - would you come out ahead paying 55% of gross income? I was shocked to realise I would. I don't even care if i come out ahead or not, it is just a simpler way to do it, and gives more people more security. Even if you come out behind on paper I think we would all come out ahead in the end. or - mayb I just don't want to do the maths.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 8, 2021 22:15:18 GMT -5
More that property taxes seemed to be rolled into the whole Danish tax system. No idea how its all figured out, but the list of tax rates lumped property taxes in with income and investment and church! taxes for one big max-out-at-55% tax rate. If we included property taxes and every other tax and paid them on one bill rather than the death by a thousand cuts US system (and treated the cost of healthcare and college as indirect taxes) - would you come out ahead paying 55% of gross income? I was shocked to realise I would. I don't even care if i come out ahead or not, it is just a simpler way to do it, and gives more people more security. Even if you come out behind on paper I think we would all come out ahead in the end. or - mayb I just don't want to do the maths. [img src="https://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/ymamsmiles/smile.gif"] Well I did and just tripled my property taxes to ~30,000!😳
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,131
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 8, 2021 22:20:22 GMT -5
I don't even care if i come out ahead or not, it is just a simpler way to do it, and gives more people more security. Even if you come out behind on paper I think we would all come out ahead in the end. or - mayb I just don't want to do the maths. [img src="https://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/ymamsmiles/smile.gif"] Well I did and just tripled my property taxes to ~30,000!😳 Tell me about it!
|
|