- Hi Tom,You wrote, "all western countries the number of these kind of people have grown within the last decates."Have you not noticed that the growth of governement in Western countries has coincided with the growth of the poor in these countries?And have you not noticed that as the numbers of poor grow, the calls for more government intervention increase?Redistribution is a drain on wealth creation. The result can only be more and more poor.But the good news I suppose is that once everyone is poor, there will be no more inequality between us. We will all be equally impoverished.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tom,Welcome to our little part of the society - keep in mind that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and not a Democracy like most of Europe. The Constitution is a limit on a Central Federal Government they only have Article I section 8 enumerated powers - all others rights and powers go to the State Republics and then to the people.So, taxes and Redistribution of wealth is a conflict in our belief system of property ownership and the amendments which like this part of the 5th amendment called the 'TAKING CLAUSE" - nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. So as you can see it would seem that any property taken for public use must be paid market value to the owner. There are serious issues in our nation about the Government usurping powers they do not have in law of the Constitution. America is in a state of flux or a tipping point will we become a social society like Europe or will we return to the limits of a Constitutional Republic strictly enforced.The Republic concept is the bed rock of our States - our government is made up of 51 separate Republics with their own Constitutions Currently the States are starting to use the 10th amendment to nullify Federal laws that are not enumerated [permitted]. America is in a very close fight to save the Republic.Here is a very good searchable Constitution and it is free. Hope you enjoy our debates some will be very heated but most are open and conducted in a proper manner.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dear Mangus,this is very interesting and I did not know about that. How does your supreme court think about the relationship between Taxes and the "Taking Clause".We have a very similar clause in our constitution. But of course you need some taxes to run a country, you have to pay for government, for Defence, for Police, for Hospitals etc.The German supreme court (called "Bundesverfassungsgericht") has ruled that Tax should not be over 50% because of the "taking clause".I have learned in School that in former times the tax rates in USA have been much higher as in Germany, USA had tax rates up to 94% in the first half of the last century. How could that be looking at your statement above ? Why did your supreme court not ruled against such high taxes ?Best RegardsThomas
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tom,Tax rates are myth like the number of poor. First we will address the tax rate it could be 100% but then you must include the loopholes designed for social engineering by government - many economic activities can offset or reduce the taxes paid. An example here is when the tax rate was 90% the people stopped investing in housing for the middle class and the poor - so the government then said OK you can deduct up to five years prepaid interest - so the money flowed to qualified investments which included farm land. There was no limit so the rich simply purchased all property they could find as they were only risking 10%. They earned huge profits which were again invested in sheltered loophole filled items.Next let us address the definition of poor - In America a family of four is poor if they earn less than $ 24,000 per year so they then qualify for a raft of benefit programs, rent assistance, free meals [3] each day for the children, free food stamps, free medical care including vision and dental, Utility assistance, free college, and other benefits boosting the total buying power income to over $ 40,000 now what nations except America would that income not place on in the middle class. So, the reason statistics do not reflect reality is that government simply increase the income each year to keep the desired number of classified poor.These same POOR have more than one Color TV, cable TV service, a high percentage have internet, most have dishwashers, Air Conditioning and oh yes one or more cars. So, you see the standard of living would not be considered poor in most of Europe. Where would that income and properties put these same people in the various EU nations? Definitions must be equal before valid comparisons can be made.
- Permalink Reply by on
- American rich are moving -Cap of 20% rate for income over $320,000.Strong Military: The Singaporean military is arguably the most technologically advanced in Southeast Asia.[108] It comprises the Army, Navy, and Air Force.[7] It is seen as the guarantor of the country's independence.[109]Open borders for skilled workers: As of 2011, the population of Singapore is 5.18 million people, of whom 3.25 million (63%) are citizens while the rest (37%) are permanent residents or foreign workers.Very well functioning healthcare...Been nice knowing you America...at our current pace we're a decade or less away from Greek level street riots when they find out the treasury is empty. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is a example of tax policy resulting in the exit of JOB creators and even giving up citizenship to avoid tyrannical taxes.
So How Much Did He Really Save?
MORE IN PERSONAL FINANCE »Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship last year and now is a resident of Singapore.How much did he save on his taxes by making the switch then?A spokesman for Mr. Saverin declined to say. But based on financial filings, experts say, it was likely tens of millions in income tax and far more in estate tax—at least $700 million at current values and tax rates.Here is why: The Facebook FB -0.28% co-founder holds 2% of the company's stock, worth more than $2 billion at $38 a share. By renouncing his citizenship last September, before the public offering, he limited his 15% "exit tax" to the gains in his shares and other assets up to that point. Appreciation in the shares after that escapes the tax.Depending on how Mr. Saverin valued his holdings, which were illiquid at the time, he might have lowered his bill even more.If those two moves shaved even $10 a share from the IPO price of $38, then Mr. Saverin's early exit saved him more than $80 million; likely it was more, says independent tax expert Robert Willens.Mr. Saverin didn't need to move to Singapore for income-tax reasons, says David Miller, a lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in New York. That's because there are legal techniques for tapping investments without paying tax, such as borrowing and hedging against them, Mr. Miller says. And under current law, no capital-gains tax is due at death.Mr. Miller says the Facebook co-founder's real tax worry should have been estate and gift taxes—even though Mr. Saverin is only 30 years old. That's because the top rate is 35% and is set to rise next year to 55%, more than twice the 15% exit tax on appreciation. On a net worth of $2 billion, that tax would amount to $700 million. Singapore has no estate tax."On wealth that great, it's far harder to avoid U.S. estate and gift tax than to avoid income tax, especially if you are unmarried," Mr. Miller says.—Laura Saunders
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tom,these videos might help you understand Americans and opportunity to go from poor to super rich by your own efforts and smarts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tom D.,What an interesting query you have.America is a experiment. A very successful one. When it was first given proper guidelines (the Constitution), it really took off. But it is an experiment. Two of our most influential founders, Presidents Jefferson and Madison warned about the MONEY (Jefferson - banks, Madison - corporations) or more succinctly put, "the flow of the money".If we still held all of our manufacturing (as another founding father, Alexander Hamilton, advocated), we would be doing fine. But the banks and the corporations have sent them packing to China, Mexico, and Taiwan. What really opened the door was the NAFTA treaty which let all the cows out of the barn. You do have cows in Germany, yes? ; )IN OUR LAND, there is an erosion happening because of "the flow of money". The corporations have moved their factories south into Mexico, getting sweetheart deals with the overhead via that government. The newly relocated factories pay low wages ($2-$10 and hour) and this in turn drives many of the Mexican population to the USA where they reap free benefits from our economic system but don't pay back because they work "under the table". This is a drain on our economy.Our system, our way of life, our very existence, is now threatened because there is no "keeper of the store" overseeing this "experiment".Yes, the entrepreneurs do get disgustingly rich but the land remains free because of themostly honest competition for goods and services. The emphasis is on freedom to make money and not on concentration to control. That is what makes America great and makes it worth fighting for.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes Freedom for every individual is important and should be the ultimate goal, I fully agreee.
But unfortunatly often we see the case that the freedom of one individual turns into the loss of freedom of another.If we would remove all "red-traffic lights" would this result in more freedom for everyone or simply in more accidents ? Or in the loss of freedom for those who are not driving a uge tank but just a small car ?
I think this is the real question about freedom...
- Permalink Reply by on
- You say your focus is on freedom t o make money and not on concentration.
But don't you see also in US a trend of concentration within the economy. Companies are merging, big companies eat up smaller ones, international companies are eating up local ones etc. etc. ?Of course a big international company (I'm working for one) will always direct the work into those factories which have the lowest cost, meaning the lowest wages, this is part of their 'freedom'.And of course big companies will not pay what seems to be a fair pay but they will just pay what seems to be the lowest possible way to make people work for them. This is also part of their 'freedom'.My basic question is, why should people who are simply workers (and not managers with big bonus-plans) cheer for such 'freedom', the outcome is not of their interest....
- Permalink Reply by on
- Tom,Maybe the worker of the multi nationals will be happy to have employment that provide them with a decent standard of living? The growth of Corporations and manufacturing operations is simple - economy of scale. I was an Executive with and International conglomerate - we had 110 separate Businesses operating in most of the free world and in China.By being this size we had experience and knowledge of laws to operate in the most cost effective manner which yielded higher than average profits. Business is all about profit and that is how employee gain security and faith in future employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment