The UK used to be, but luckily it's more advanced nowadays.Originally Posted by Butterfly
The UK used to be, but luckily it's more advanced nowadays.Originally Posted by Butterfly
Tell me more. Why not?Originally Posted by Butterfly
Well there might be some of the top 1% that are paying an effective tax of around 2%, it would be interesting to see some numbers on that. The following study from 2007 (based upon 2005 tax year) indicates tax on adjusted gross income (AGI) for the top 1% is 23.13%. Granted this is based upon AGI and not total income, and certainly many of the top 1% utilize just about any loophole they can find to minimize their AGI. As I stated earlier I woul be all in favor of simplifying the tax code to eliminate ALL deductions and while we are at it I would be happy to throw in eliminating ALL tax credits as well.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf
Actually based upon the study in the link the top 1% have the highest tax rate of all.
That being said there would need to be some pretty serious tax shelters available to drive their tax from 23.13% down to 2% on gross income.
Note that the top 1% paid 39.38% of the tax, and that is pretty close to the 41.33% of the tax paid by the bottom 95%. This means that 1.3 million folks paid nearly the same amount of the tax bill as the bottom 126 million folks.
Also note that the top 1% had a total of around 368 billion in tax credits (about 40% of the total tax credits). Seems fair that if they paid nearly 40% of the bill that they could get about 40% of the tax credits.
Keeping in mind this only accounts for federal income tax, has nothing to do with social security tax, medicare tax, state tax, consumption taxes, or any other kind of tax. And a key being of course that agian these numbers are based upon AGI.
I would love it if someone could find any kind of study that has numbers related to actual effective tax - across the board. Or a study that can give details in regard to gross income and not AGI.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg
not sure where to start, will need some time to answer that one.Originally Posted by Norton
You won't find any unless you work for one of the big 5 accounting firm, they do their own internal study as marketing material for their clients, and they don't publish it. Publishing the effective tax rate of the very rich would open a big can of worms. Nobody wants to see those numbers, not even the politicians as it would force them to take actions. But I know for a fact that the number above of 2% is not unusual, and more like the average actually. The rich would rather spend their money paying expensive tax consultants than give any of it to governments and society.Originally Posted by Bugs
Socialism is to do with the redistribution of wealth!
Why should others have a right to mine?
it's not really, it's about controlled growth and social responsibility,Originally Posted by good2bhappy
it's not communism, which is the complete redistribution of wealth and income,
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the public.
^ there are several definition of socialism, and all of them are correct but can be interpreted differently,
the redistribution of income is indirect, so for example instead of having a large corporation stealing all the money from the public by ass raping consumers, they are told to fuck off and make a normal profit instead of an obscene one. Therefore the "income" went from the corporation back to the public.
Now tell me what's wrong with that ?
sounds like the means of production versus the owners of production
well technically, the means are as important as the owners, without the means, you wouldn't need the owners,
the capital should belong to labor as much as the owners, capital without labor, no production, no profit, no need for ownership
By monopolizing capital, the owners are actually alienating themselves, and creating their own self destruction,
in some way, socialism will reverse or slow down that self-destruction process inherent to capitalism,
Why dont the owners allow the workers to purchase shares and therefore become owners in their own right?
because buying minority shares in a company doesn't really make you the owner, and you have no say in the capital use of the company, this is still at management discretion
However, making the majority of the capital available to the workers is a good start, with management and other third party owners being a minority,
also workers representation on the board of directors, or management committee would be a better option than just buying shares in a corporation,
like in the friendly societies of the 19th century?
Last edited by good2bhappy; 21-06-2008 at 08:52 AM.
In what way?
Given that the gay stalinistas have now moulded a society in which employment by the state and those in receipt of benefits now accounts for over half of the population, I would suggest that the creation of a new socialist utopia has already been created in dear old Blighty.
Of course, the middle classes bear the brunt of the taxation necessary to pay for this burden which has risen to a level never experienced before.
A coup by stealth perhaps but evidently it seems to have slipped past whatever may pass as your radar.
To answer your question,Originally Posted by Norton
The Nordic Socialist are doing great for individuals welfare, but they seem to go a bit too far. First the heavy personal taxation for the middle class is a killer for any incentives, and some of their social benefits might go a bit far (parental leave of 1 month for a father with a newborn),
As for businesses, they still let the big ones get away with it, so it seems that they did a half done job at the end. Maybe less social benefits, but not that much, and more incentives on a personal level,
they are also seem to be characterized by lack of small business opportunities,
These are over-generalization of their common characteristic, each of those country are functioning differently of course,
Sorry, I must have been thinking about the good old days before Blair fucked things up again in typical Labour fashion.Originally Posted by thegent
Living Large in Socialized Housing
Britain shows us that socialism works as efficiently in housing as it does in everything else:
Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saiedi, 35, receives £170,000 a year in benefits — a staggering £150,000 of which is paid to a private landlord for the rent of their seven-bedroom house in West London.It's not all roses for Toorpakai, an Afghan asylum seeker whose estranged husband drives a taxi. Her son Jawad complains:
The detached property in Acton has two large reception rooms, two kitchens, a dining room and a 100ft garden.
Ealing Council is picking up the £12,458 a month bill — which is nearly five times the rent for a similar property in the same road.
Some of the rooms in England we would not even put our chickens in because they are so small.Jawad is a student who admits to spending most of his time driving around or playing snooker. He's philosophical about the fairness of living like royalty on the backs of British taxpayers:
When the council chose to put us here we did not say no. If someone gave you a lottery jackpot would you leave it?But society's ability to pay out housing jackpots to parasites is limited — as Americans have already learned thanks to the subprime crisis that is crippling our economy."
No shit, Sherlock...
A Deplorable Bitter Clinger
^This is quite a big story in some of the more sensationalist tabloids.
No doubt they will now be hounded out of their accomodation just to satisfy the bloodlust whipped up by the press.
But surely it is the council officials that should be in the spotlight for this.
After all if you were offered this accomodation would you turn it down?
The hypocricy that went straight over the readers heads is that at the same time the press are highlighting this scourge of the benefits system, the government is pumping £400 billion into the economy so all those rich bankers can afford to stay in their mansions.
There are no rules in the UK, it's everyone for themselves native and immigrant alike.
^ Oh, so the UK is as bad as the US? Huh. About time able-bodied people were told to go get a job.
I cannae understand folks like Bfly and Robski, who think welfare folks should get a free ride from people who are out fulfilling their dreams, working hard, making businesses, creating jobs, and ultimately making money. Follow their way, why bother going to uni or following your dreams? Fek! The govt (ie, the guys who made money and pay taxes) in the socialist states will give the lackeys free homes, support their kids, healthcare, whatever. I will never be a loser like that.
what way will you be a loser then?Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
^^^
Hey Jet, why don't you try reading what I said before making your innane conclusions about me.
Holding a grudge for so long is really childish.
You're trying to make like such a hard-arse radical but all you sound like is a naiive teenager. Why don't you just stick to what you know. Making cakes. Seriously.
Perhaps if you took the time to think about what your saying before actually typing it, and stopped trying to turn your difference of opinion on subjects into personal attacks people might be interested in what you have to say.
You're not as clued up on politics and social issues as you think Jet, but you are clearly bitter and hateful.
Now toodle off back to the cooking forum and see if you can lick someones bowl.
When you consider that:
That 40% of the world population is driven to poverty due to illness...a little socialism isn't too bad after all.
"Germany has the world's oldest universal care system and is arguably the most successful. Like Americans, most Germans get their health coverage through their employers. But Germany's rich pay higher premiums to subsidize insurance for the poor — a principle the Germans call "solidarity."
Health Insurance Bill of 1883
The first bill that had success was the Health Insurance bill, which was passed in 1883. The program was considered the least important from Bismarck’s point of view, and the least politically troublesome. The program was established to provide health care for the largest segment of the German workers. The health service was established on a local basis, with the cost divided between employers and the employed. The employers contributed 1/3rd, while the workers contributed 2/3rds . The minimum payments for medical treatment and Sick Pay for up to 13 weeks were legally fixed. The individual local health bureaus were administered by a committee elected by the members of each bureau, and this move had the unintended effect of establishing a majority representation for the workers on account of their large financial contribution. This worked to the advantage of the Social Democrats who – through heavy Worker membership – achieved their first small foothold in public administration.
you need communism just as you need capitalism it seems, they are juxtaposed in the world economy to support each other, but of course people see it as a way to be part of one and demonize the other. There of course are others that now see a timely improved understanding which is complimentary to a downfall of both the above situations, which allows for an apparent move to something better.
In truth, if i can use such a word, no one system helps, there is never an ideal or relevant solution to such a complex order of things as a whole. They must be tackled on a individual base, to which all parties can respond for the benefit of the whole.
This is being borne out in the EU meeting at the moment by all relevant parties, where the richer countries have supposed a plan to help the crisis, and the poorer countries cannot live up to such demands. It shows that a state system cannot work for and towards the best interest of a devision between the rich and poor on any scale.
im hot its so hot today.......milk was a bad choice!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)