View Full Version : "Tax the rich!" - The dumbest slogan ever.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 19:36
Not just a dumb slogan, but a completely idiotic policy as well.
There have been some documentaries shown about the last US presidential election lately(and when I say lately, I mean "this spring"). A common theme among the Obama-supporters is that he wants to cut taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for "the rich".
To me, a European socialist commie-hippie, that's about as dumb as it gets.
They make it sound like the rich are some kind of money fountain that never empties, and we can just tap into it and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, reality is different. In any society with something that amounts to a welfare state, the most important aspect is the tax morale. People will have to see their taxes as just and appropriate, if not then they won't be paid. That goes for every layer of society; poor, rich and everyone in-between. The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will. But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.
Everyone should pay the same level of tax. If the tax level is 28%, then you should pay 28% whether you make 500.000 or 500.000.000 per year. It will probably be acceptable for everyone to lower the tax a little for those with low incomes, but those making around the average income in a country should pay the full tax - and those making more than that should pay the same.
If you want the government to fund new stuff, fine; but be aware that you are the one who's going to pay for it through taxes. You can't expect "the rich" to buy it for you.
Yeah. Taxe the poors in more efficient as they don't have opportunities to open bank accounts in fiscal paradise, or to pay financial advisers (if possible the wife of a minister) to evade to pay.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 19:52
Yeah. Taxe the poors in more efficient as they don't have opportunities to open bank accounts in fiscal paradise, or to pay financial advisers (if possible the wife of a minister) to evade to pay.
No, they have no money. Tax the working and middle classes. And tax the rich the same amount as everyone else.
You got it the wrong way, relative wealth. The poor need the money for essentials, the rich don't need money. So a rich person paying your hypothetical 28% is not the same as a poor person paying 28%. The 28% applied on the rich does not affect standard of living, while it does on the poor. This is resolved with what is called "progressive taxation". Also, there is the other factor that rich people on average pay a lesser percentage than the poor, due to the type of income they recieve and where it comes from. So while poorer classes recieve direct income from an employer. The rich generally don't. There are other examples where the rich constantly try fraud, tax evasion and tax havens.
When people also start earning more than £200,000 then it starts falling in the terrority of exploitation. That is over ten times the average wage, and the vast minority of the rich actually work less than those earning that average wage (cue: football players, actors, Johnathan Ross, etc) or simply inherited that wealth, or even have the influence over people doing the work, to give them large amounts of money. All that money could easily be used in different ways, such as lowering the costs to the consumers, or even giving a pay rise to those at the bottom.
Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-13-2010, 19:58
You can either take a car away from 10 poor families, or a watch away from a rich man.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 20:02
You got it the wrong way, relative wealth. The poor need the money for essentials, the rich don't need money.
Actual need is quite irrelevant when it comes to whether a tax is seen as just. And when did the middle class become "poor"...? I can pay a few % more in tax without noticing it on my standard of living, just as I can pay less and not notice anything. Just like a rich guy. Hence, no reason why we shouldn't pay the same.
Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.
No, but we have plenty of stories of billionares who move to cyprus or some other tax haven.
And the bottom line is that taxing the rich isn't like finding Ali Baba's treasure; there really isn't that much money to collect. There is far more money in raising the tax for the middle class, due to their number.
Myrddraal
07-13-2010, 20:10
And the bottom line is that taxing the rich isn't like finding Ali Baba's treasure; there really isn't that much money to collect. There is far more money in raising the tax for the middle class, due to their number.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that progressive taxes are bad or even useless.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 20:14
Of course, but that doesn't mean that progressive taxes are bad or even useless.
As I said, I support them up to around the average wage. But I firmly believe that the middle class should pay the same tax as the rich.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-13-2010, 20:19
Progressive income taxes serve to really stick the bill onto the upper middle class. The rich can lobby/account/hide/obfuscate/purchase tax shelters so as to protect some of that nicely aged money of theirs. The professionals and those working hard to become rich are the ones most hammered by a progressive income tax.
If you want to tax wealth, tax wealth. If you want to tax income, Horetore is easily on the better track. Have a personal exemption of X for each individual on the tax return (amount determined as the minimum needed to prevent poverty level). Tax all remaining income at the same rate. Let's the go-getters build wealth and build the economy, doesn't unduly hammer the poor and/or ne'er-do-wells, and (by defining income fairly broadly but not double taxing on estates etc.) should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.
Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.
Yes you do, but they are just actresses with eating disorders.
“No, they have no money” Yes they have. How do they pay their cigarettes and their alcohol…?
And there are more poor than rich. Thousand poor make one rich.
Louis VI the Fat
07-13-2010, 20:27
Bah, filthy capitalists and their evil ways. :smash:
Civilised societies have a progressive tax system.
Except for Norway, which has an infinte ATM in the North Sea and consequently has much lower personal taxation than the rest of Northwest Europe. The more I learn about Norway, the more I don't understand why the EU doesn't just send an expedionairy force to liberate it. Can't some Fins fly a few planes in some Brussels' highrises, that we have an excuse to invade Norway?
Should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.
You might think so, but that will never happen. They would just continue it.
As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without receiving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would well be on its on way of clearing its national debt. As after all, they could afford not to receive anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night, along with as if all the tax evaders were clean with their tax bills, etc.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 20:48
Except for Norway, which has an infinte ATM in the North Sea and consequently has much lower personal taxation than the rest of Northwest Europe.
Art thou insane?
The tax level for Norway is over 56.7%, according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_freedom_day). Which beats the rest of Europe by a large margin.
should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.
Legal stuff won't ever reduce tax evasion by much; increasing tax morale is the only way. If people agree that their tax is appropriate, they will pay it. And people won't accept paying much more in taxes than others.
Vladimir
07-13-2010, 20:48
Horetore is right (yes, I'm sober). The middle class is where the money is. Tax them.
Edit: Wait? Did he just advocate a flat tax?! My man. :thumbsup:
As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without recieving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would have cleared its national debt. As afterall, they could afford not to recieve anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night.
You are seriously underestimating America's debt, and seriously overestimating how rich people get paid. Wages are a pittance.
Vladimir
07-13-2010, 21:09
You are seriously underestimating America's debt, and seriously overestimating how rich people get paid. Wages are a pittance.
I think he means wealth; and no, he doesn't know much about the U.S.
PanzerJaeger
07-13-2010, 21:22
Yes, Hore!
The tax system should be based on equity, not need. People above the poverty level should be taxed at the same rate.
No, but we have plenty of stories of billionares who move to cyprus or some other tax haven.
Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html?_r=1) even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 21:39
Horetore is right (yes, I'm sober). The middle class is where the money is. Tax them.
Edit: Wait? Did he just advocate a flat tax?! My man. :thumbsup:
Not really....
I'm also a very big fan of deductables and added tax.... Ie. you can get a tax refund if you insulate your house better, which lowers your power need... But I am all in favour of taxing the hell out of you should you want to have heat cables in your driveway so you won't have to shuffle snow during the winter(yes, people do that.)...
Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html?_r=1) even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.
Then US billionares use some other method of dodging taxes. The end result remains the same, how they do it is irrelevant.
EDIT: And I very much doubt that people care about losing a Norwegian citizenship....
Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/26expat.html?_r=1) even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.
Didn't know the US did that, but I know Israel does. Britain doesn't, it only taxes on income earned domestically.
Then US billionares use some other method of dodging taxes. The end result remains the same, how they do it is irrelevant.
Tell that to UBS and HSBC.
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 21:51
Tell that to UBS and HSBC.
I have no idea what you're talking about....
I have no idea what you're talking about....
The US Department of Justice started going after major tax evaders by going after their banks. They started with UBS, who got slaughtered and took a huge loss over the scandal. It was so bad that the Swiss government had to give up trying to protect them:
UBS paid a $780 million fine last year and admitted criminal wrongdoing in connection with offshore services sold to wealthy Americans through its private bank that allowed them to evade billions of dollars in taxes. Last month, the Swiss Parliament approved a final deal to hand over to the I.R.S. the details of 4,450 accounts used by wealthy Americans suspected of evading taxes.
Now the DoJ is doing the same thing to HSBC. (Link (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/u-s-widens-tax-inquiry-into-hsbc/)) The problem for the banks it that the value of their business (and the business of the countries that harbor them) in the US is far higher than the value of the business they get from hiding US tax evaders. The US government realized this recently and started tightening the screws. The banks can still hide the information if they want, but the US government will still fine them and confiscate their assets inside the US. Essentially, it just got a lot harder for US tax evaders, because now they need to find banks that are small enough that they don't care about doing business in the US... and there's not exactly a whole lot of those.
Louis VI the Fat
07-13-2010, 22:19
Art thou insane?
The tax level for Norway is over 56.7%, according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_freedom_day). Which beats the rest of Europe by a large margin.Nah, that's not really the most useful. For income taxes, check this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Norway is well below the other social paradises of Northwest Europe. Most Norwegians, except those in very high income brackets, pay a measly 28% income tax. If I'm a good boy and die and go to heaven, I'll only ever have to pay 28% income tax ever again. :bigcry:
HoreTore
07-13-2010, 22:24
Nah, that's not really the most useful. For income taxes, check this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Norway is well below the other social paradises of Northwest Europe. Most Norwegians, except those in very high income brackets, pay a measly 28% income tax. If I'm a good boy and die and go to heaven, I'll only ever have to pay 28% income tax ever again. :bigcry:
Yes, our income tax is much lower because we collect our tax in other ways.
EDIT: Why on earth you care about "income tax" is beyond me really.... The only thing that matters is the total amount of tax paid, and paid by who. Just how that tax is collected is completely irrelevant when comparing taxation between countries.
And Norway still beats all of you. Heck, a brit only pays two thirds of my tax....
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 03:52
Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:
No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 04:22
Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:
No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:
Growing up, getting selfish, same thing under the eyes of everyone anti-tax.
I had my gf tell me after a day of working on a movie set that she was assigned to organizing and filing whatever the papers are called that deal with taxes for the crew working on the set. She noticed that one person was making $7,000 a week. The person was losing a little under half of it to taxes. My gf then proclaims **** taxes. Do people lose sight of what is going on here? 7,000 a week is $364,000 for a year. Take in account for a moment, that instead of a movie (which I believe usually has about 40-50ish days of on set working), the guy had a stable job with a steady year round paycheck. Half of that gone means the man is making 182,000 a year! This man is still making more then 90% of Americans and I get **** taxes?
But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.
Eh? According to the Socialist doctrine, the State's objective is to equalize the wealth in its society, and that means narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. If everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate, the rich keep getting richer, while the poorer keep getting poorer in comparison. The classes purchase power therefore begins differing rapidly, and begins widening. A higher tax isn't neither unjust nor should be seen as a punishment (as you still make more money than poorer people regardless), and using exactly that same analogy would also show why the VAT is an unjust taxing policy. A State is about helping its citizens, and since the poorer don't have the means to earn what the rich can, then the State must tax the rich and use the funds as social transfers to level the field as best as possible for all its citizens. Anything otherwise is inherently unjust.
You're saying someone who lives on a minimum wage should give the same percentage of their earnings (Which are scarce and can barely pay all bills - if all of them - and still get through the month being fed properly and buying all the medicine they should, etc?) that of a rich banker who has absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying that amount of taxes or double that, and still go through the month paying for every luxury it wants and still have money to save? That system is inherently unjust.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 04:53
No not selfish. Realistic.
If someone's worth is $7,000 a week then it's right he/she gets the correct renumeration. I have no problem with that. One of the faults of communism is that it takes away incentive. Why get a job as, say, an oil tanker captain and get paid the same as the bog cleaner?
As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.
Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:
As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.
Stealing? Damn, that means I must be a thief, or accessory to theft, as I'm studying across the country, going through college thanks to the Scholarship I get from the State, without which I could never study (Because I am in fact poor). I am most thankful to our thieving overlords, without whose thefts I could have never gotten the opportunities I have today.
CountArach
07-14-2010, 05:03
Am I the only one caught off-guard by HoreTore being the one to start this thread? I kept waiting for the punch-line, but it never arrived...
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 05:14
No not selfish. Realistic.
If someone's worth is $7,000 a week then it's right he/she gets the correct renumeration. I have no problem with that. One of the faults of communism is that it takes away incentive. Why get a job as, say, an oil tanker captain and get paid the same as the bog cleaner?
As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.
Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:
I was not arguing he should be paid less. I was simply annoyed at the sudden defiance towards taxes for having a man's standard of living not even drop.
The authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. We have all consented to be ruled by the government in charge of the region in which we reside through a social contract. Therefor, the actions of the government cannot be called stealing. If you feel you can not consent to the government due to its actions, then renounce your citizenship and reside under another government.
Comparing Al Capone to the government is absolutely nonsensical. AL Capone did not have the consent of the American people to rule over them and do as he judged should be done, the government does. Capone's actions violated people's rights since they did not consent to his actions whereas they have with the government. Everyone signs a social contract toward the government, Al Capone didn't have anyone sign any such contract to give him authority over their rights.
Money is power. Power corrupts. The more money you have, the stronger the corruption presses against you.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 05:18
I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 05:25
I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.
You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.
It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 05:34
Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have less then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.
This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png
EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/
EDIT: ****, I made a really bad typo. Sasaki quoted me before I fixed the typo.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-14-2010, 05:39
Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have more then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.
This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png
EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/
Perfect.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 05:45
You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.
It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.
Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.
Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:
You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 06:02
Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.
Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:
You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:
You have entered it voluntarily. I could type a long paragraph, but this sentence from wikipedia's article on Social Contract will do:
To be a member of society is to accept responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility) for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment) for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon"
You have throughout your life willingly agreed to sacrifice ultimate freedom (including the ability to kill another) in order to gain civil rights (the right to not be murdered) under the authority of the government. You consented to the social contract since you have made use of the government's benefits toward you and have followed societies laws. You accepted responsibility.
Centurion1
07-14-2010, 06:03
The real question here is who is using horetores computer?
200000 isn't as much as you think it is beskar.
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 06:06
My monies on Dev Dave. :laugh4:
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 06:08
Hmmm, if it really isn't HoreTore using his account then I hope he forgives me for calling him a weak fool.
The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will.
This is more properly known as "going Galt". It has never happened here and no evidence exists to suggest that it ever will. Hope that helps.
Also I'm throwing my hat in with the "this can't be HoreTore" crowd.
fake edit: Oh come on. I know HoreTore understands progressive taxation and how intrinsic it is to western society. This can't be him.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 06:54
I have firmly decided, that the post is HoreTore and that tomorrow he will ridicule us all for believing his complete 180 turn on his beliefs. Calling his trolling out now so I don't have to count myself as a victim.
Louis VI the Fat
07-14-2010, 09:04
I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.You're British, a subject to a crown, nobody asked nor needed you to sign anything. :smash:
Which I guess at least makes for a good excuse, unlike other countries where supposedly the people really do are in charge...
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 09:36
Actually since 1983 I've also been a citizen. No one ask me to sign owt then either. :book:
As for being a subject, never had a problem with it. We tolerate Madge, no more no less. Beats having a Bush/Sarkozy/Hitler in charge.
Yeh got a Godwin in. :laugh4:
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 09:43
Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:
No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:
I've always felt this way, IA ~;)
Eh? According to the Socialist doctrine, the State's objective is to equalize the wealth in its society, and that means narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. If everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate, the rich keep getting richer, while the poorer keep getting poorer in comparison. The classes purchase power therefore begins differing rapidly, and begins widening. A higher tax isn't neither unjust nor should be seen as a punishment (as you still make more money than poorer people regardless), and using exactly that same analogy would also show why the VAT is an unjust taxing policy. A State is about helping its citizens, and since the poorer don't have the means to earn what the rich can, then the State must tax the rich and use the funds as social transfers to level the field as best as possible for all its citizens. Anything otherwise is inherently unjust.
I am all in favour of wealth redistribution. I do not, however, believe that a simple tax is the best way of achieving that.
You're saying someone who lives on a minimum wage should give the same percentage of their earnings (Which are scarce and can barely pay all bills - if all of them - and still get through the month being fed properly and buying all the medicine they should, etc?) that of a rich banker who has absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying that amount of taxes or double that, and still go through the month paying for every luxury it wants and still have money to save? That system is inherently unjust.
Try reading what I've been saying one more time.
I've said that everyone making the average wage and more should pay the same. Those making below that should pay less. Because let's face it, once you're making the average wage, you're perfectly capable of paying your bills.
Just to clarify:
I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)
I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)
Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 10:00
Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)
How so? I'm already of the class I'm proposing to burn... And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.
It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 10:01
Fair enough. Luckily I have skills that are wanted the world over. Of course money is not the only factor, but it forms part of the "quality of life" equation. If the soaking of my wage becomes too detrimental then I'll review whether relocating is worth it. A flat tax would make this far more equitable however.
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 10:01
Just to clarify:
I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)
So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.
Myrddraal
07-14-2010, 10:07
Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:
Why are so many people equating high taxation with flat taxation? Saying that punitive taxation is counter productive is not the same as saying that progressive taxes are bad/good.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 10:08
So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.
Nonsense.
How so?
Oh, receiving an "invitation" to pay your property tax right after you just bought furniture for the room of the soon expected firstborn, paid your car insurance, vehicle tax and the monthly electricity, gas and telephone bills, kinda helps to shift you from "As a noble follower of the noble communist ideals, I'd love to pay more taxes." to "Bloody thieves!" :laugh4:
It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves.
Pay with what? The crumbles that are left over after the thieves have gotten their share?
There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.
Unless you're the government. Then you have a magic pot called "taxpayers".
EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.
EDIT2:
And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.
This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:
CountArach
07-14-2010, 10:11
So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.
That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 10:14
That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.
We all need health care, we all need roads, we all need culture, we all need education, etc etc etc
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 10:28
INt he UK the government keeps trying to narrow the rich / poor divide:
Education: rich parents probably spend more time with their children, talk to them more, get them more interested in the world / didn't drink / smoke during pregnancy. Solution? More money for schools that have poor children. Failing that, discriminate against people with rich parents at university
Health: you die younger when you're poorer. Mainly due to drinking, smoking, no exercise and overeating. Solution? Throw money at campaigns to try to get these people to do what's plainly obvious.
More wealthy: higheer wages for menial jobs. Low productivity? So what?
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 10:30
It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.
Question: If the working and middle need to pay for their government programs. Why is it that you have decided that just because they pay 30% and the rich pay 50% that their contribution is not a "fair" share. Why is it that in order for the money that they put in to be a "fair" amount, has to be an equal percentage to the share that a rich person puts in?
So when the average man pays his 30% of the national median salary of $44,389 and ends up with $31,072, he now has to feed his family (lets say 4 including him) with the equivalent of 1.41 times the poverty line for a family of 4 ($20,050) instead of about 2 times the national poverty line.
The the rich man who makes lets say...7 grand a week or $384,000, will pay this flat 30% and make off with $268,800. He now has to feed his family of 4 with 13.4 times the poverty line instead of 19.15 times the poverty line.
Can we honestly say that if we are to take <1 as starving that the family who gets sent from 2 to 1.41 is impacted just the same as the family sent from 19.15 to 13.4? Really guys?
EDIT: Used American numbers and statistics.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 10:42
That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.
That is completely ridiculous. The middle class feel strained economically as well at least in the United States. The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc. When you take more money from them in taxes, you might be providing them health care and all these other good things we all need, but then they have to further stretch their dollar further and cut back on TV, other forms of entertainment, and cannot eat out so they can continue to live in their house with electricity and heating and all those other essentials to survive. The standard of living had dropped dramatically for them, they may not be starving but they are pushed closer to the limit of being self sustainable and losing everything (especially if a recession hit and they lost their job) and they begin to serve a life of servitude, where they work to survive, they work to pay the bills for the private "thieves" as someone put it and the government "Al Capones" as someone else put it. They may not be starving, but they are nevertheless reduced to economic slavery of working nonstop in order to feed the beast.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 11:15
EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.
It's just a number.
This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:
....And it's actually completely true!
I'm actually very happy to pay my taxes. I actually feel that my money is spent wisely.
The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc.
Lolz! The people who are dumb enough to have credit card bills should be forced to pay at least 90% of their income in taxes.
a completely inoffensive name
07-14-2010, 11:21
Lolz! The people who are dumb enough to have credit card bills should be forced to pay at least 90% of their income in taxes.
Well, I can't say I disagree that there are many people who are stupid when it comes to handling credit cards...but I wouldn't punish them further, the bills do that for them. I hope I get to put off getting a credit card as long as possible.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 11:32
Well, I can't say I disagree that there are many people who are stupid when it comes to handling credit cards...but I wouldn't punish them further, the bills do that for them. I hope I get to put off getting a credit card as long as possible.
There isn't a single person on this planet who needs a credit card.
Just create a savings account and place around 1.5 to 2 times your monthly salary in it, and you'll have enough cash for any situation.
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 11:34
Credit cards do have useful functions. They are accepted where other cards aren't e.g. abroad, some exam boards refused debit dards - no idea why. Goods bought on them often have automatic insurance - if the company you booked the flight with goes down you can claim back the money - but not on a debit card. Some give back points / money.
So I have one mainly for emergencies. I can't envisage what those emergencies are, as if I could odds are I could stop them form happening. I called up the company and pay 100% off every month by direct debit from my bank account. So, unless I somehow charge thousands of pounds to the credit card without remembering I will never pay any fees on it.
Speaking of ignorance on credit, a survey in the UK showed that a significant number of people thought that the bigger the APR the better! That might explain a company that was advertising on TV with an apr of slightly over 2,900%...
~:smoking:
Hosakawa Tito
07-14-2010, 13:39
Try renting a car without a credit card.
Vladimir
07-14-2010, 13:41
Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:
No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:
Wow. Busy thread.
He is, but his ideology will bind him to his current thinking. This thread will likely confirm biases and prevent any real maturation.
Credit cards can also be used responsibly. I have never carried a balance on my credit cards, but I use them for almost all of my purchases. I just don't buy anything I cannot afford at that exact moment and I pay off my balance in full every month. Doing that, a credit card actually saves me money because I get cash back on all my credit card puchases, so all my purchases are cheaper than they would be if I paid with cash, check, or debit card.
Crazed Rabbit
07-14-2010, 13:57
Not just a dumb slogan, but a completely idiotic policy as well.
There have been some documentaries shown about the last US presidential election lately(and when I say lately, I mean "this spring"). A common theme among the Obama-supporters is that he wants to cut taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for "the rich".
To me, a European socialist commie-hippie, that's about as dumb as it gets.
They make it sound like the rich are some kind of money fountain that never empties, and we can just tap into it and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, reality is different. In any society with something that amounts to a welfare state, the most important aspect is the tax morale. People will have to see their taxes as just and appropriate, if not then they won't be paid. That goes for every layer of society; poor, rich and everyone in-between. The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will. But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.
Everyone should pay the same level of tax. If the tax level is 28%, then you should pay 28% whether you make 500.000 or 500.000.000 per year. It will probably be acceptable for everyone to lower the tax a little for those with low incomes, but those making around the average income in a country should pay the full tax - and those making more than that should pay the same.
If you want the government to fund new stuff, fine; but be aware that you are the one who's going to pay for it through taxes. You can't expect "the rich" to buy it for you.
Did I wake up in some strange alternate universe?
As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without receiving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would well be on its on way of clearing its national debt. As after all, they could afford not to receive anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night, along with as if all the tax evaders were clean with their tax bills, etc.
There's so much wrong with this, but I'll just focus on one thing. If you took billions (trillions?) of dollars out of the economy, how would that 'save the economy'? It'd mean unemployment for everyone making goods or providing services that would have otherwise been bought by the rich.
CR
InsaneApache
07-14-2010, 15:16
You may laugh but the consensus in the 70s was that a very high tax rate would garner the amount of money to fund government spending plans. When in fact the opposite is true. A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 15:40
You may laugh but the consensus in the 70s was that a very high tax rate would garner the amount of money to fund government spending plans. When in fact the opposite is true. A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.
I never said I favoured low taxes....
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 15:43
To be fair IA never stated that you did.
I personally would like the level of tac to be determined as to what benefits the economy most. I personally think that this would be in the low 20's, but I have only an amateur's interest in the subject.
~:smoking:
A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.
???
There's enough reward for someone to start a business anyway. A little thing called profits. Not many people have the know-how, capital and drive to create a successful business.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 15:50
To be fair IA never stated that you did.
I personally would like the level of tac to be determined as to what benefits the economy most. I personally think that this would be in the low 20's, but I have only an amateur's interest in the subject.
~:smoking:
Gotta spend money to make money.
That applies to taxes and governments too...
rory_20_uk
07-14-2010, 15:59
Although this can be true, governments can also waste money and constrain growth whilst spending money.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 16:05
Although this can be true, governments can also waste money and constrain growth whilst spending money.
~:smoking:
....And a drunken oil trader can make the oil price skyrocket because he was trading oil while :daisy:faced....
That reminds me, if this was an alternative universe under Socialism. I could easily advocate 0% income tax. But under the current capitalist system, progressive taxation is the way to go.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 16:17
That reminds me, if this was an alternative universe under Socialism. I could easily advocate 0% income tax. But under the current capitalist system, progressive taxation is the way to go.
What's the point? You're never going to be able to tax the rich hard enough to actually get some real money, nor will it be sufficient to lower the gap between rich and poor.
There are more clever ways to reach that goal than the tax system.
ajaxfetish
07-14-2010, 16:25
Credit cards can also be used responsibly. I have never carried a balance on my credit cards, but I use them for almost all of my purchases. I just don't buy anything I cannot afford at that exact moment and I pay off my balance in full every month. Doing that, a credit card actually saves me money because I get cash back on all my credit card puchases, so all my purchases are cheaper than they would be if I paid with cash, check, or debit card.
Here, here!
I don't like the idea that credit card use is necessarily unhealthy. I've used a credit card for the majority of my financial interactions for the last decade. I have yet to pay a penny in interest. You can't beat the convenience, security, and breadth of acceptance of a credit card.
Ajax
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 16:34
Here, here!
I don't like the idea that credit card use is necessarily unhealthy. I've used a credit card for the majority of my financial interactions for the last decade. I have yet to pay a penny in interest. You can't beat the convenience, security, and breadth of acceptance of a credit card.
Ajax
I have yet to visit a place that does not accept my Visa card.
There are more clever ways to reach that goal than the tax system.
Hence the alternative universe under Socialism.
I have yet to visit a place that does not accept my Visa card.
You would not have a Visa debit card if the Visa credit card did not exist.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 19:20
You would not have a Visa debit card if the Visa credit card did not exist.
....And if credit cards were never invented, a debit card would've worked everywhere.
....And if credit cards were never invented, a debit card would've worked everywhere.
Not true, because without the income which the banks get from credit cards, there would have been no offset the massive costs of a global electronic transaction system. There are very few credit/debit cards that are accepted globally because there are very few companies that managed to be successful enough to sustain the costs of such a system. Visa is taken everywhere. AMEX and Mastercard are taken in many places, but far fewer than Visa. Everything else is heavily restricted.
Without the credit card companies, the best you could hope for is to be able to use your bank debit card in the regions where your bank has a lot of customers: essentially, your local community if it's a regional bank and your country if it's a national bank. You would never be able to use it abroad or online.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 19:32
Not true, because without the income which the banks get from credit cards, there would have been no offset the massive costs of a global electronic transaction system. There are very few credit/debit cards that are accepted globally because there are very few companies that managed to be successful enough to sustain the costs of such a system. Visa is taken everywhere. AMEX and Mastercard are taken in many places, but far fewer than Visa. Everything else is heavily restricted.
Without the credit card companies, the best you could hope for is to be able to use your bank debit card in the regions where your bank has a lot of customers: essentially, your local community if it's a regional bank and your country if it's a national bank. You would never be able to use it abroad or online.
Nonsense. That's like saying that I could only use my cell phone where my operator has coverage.
Of course someone would've found a way to resolve this issue, simply because it's in everyones interest that we can spend money when we want to. Especially so for the tourist locations.
Nonsense. That's like saying that I could only use my cell phone where my operator has coverage.
That's true, I didn't think of that. However, in that situation you're paying extra, which is not the case with credit cards. 'Roaming' charges for cell phones tend to be pretty high, just like ATM fees for machines that don't belong to your bank. Like I said, using a credit card actively saves me money.
Personally, I do believe that credit card companies behave dishonestly and exploit customers. At the same time, I think the majority of blame falls on the people who abuse their own credit cards. Financial responsibility is entirely within one's own control. Act like an idiot and you'll end up broke even if you have a high income. Act intelligently and you'll never have debt problems even with low income. It's all a matter of living within your means, and (at least in the US) a lot of people don't seem to understand that.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 19:45
That's true, I didn't think of that. However, in that situation you're paying extra, which is not the case with credit cards. 'Roaming' charges for cell phones tend to be pretty high, just like ATM fees for machines that don't belong to your bank. Like I said, using a credit card actively saves me money.
That's because they make the most money from these people:
Personally, I do believe that credit card companies behave dishonestly and exploit customers. At the same time, I think the majority of blame falls on the people who abuse their own credit cards. Financial responsibility is entirely within one's own control. Act like an idiot and you'll end up broke even if you have a high income. Act intelligently and you'll never have debt problems even with low income. It's all a matter of living within your means, and (at least in the US) a lot of people don't seem to understand that.
If they hadn't existed and everyone behaved responsibly, of course they would have to charge you for each transaction.
If they hadn't existed and everyone behaved responsibly, of course they would have to charge you for each transaction.
Good point. Keep spending, idiots!
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 20:33
Good point. Keep spending, idiots!
....Unfortunately, that's also a lose for us, because it shifts the focus of the economy towards the financial system and away from production... And 2008 isn't that long ago, is it?
And to bring this thread back to its origins, wealth redistribution, it has to be said that one of the most succesful ways of keeping the poor poor and make the rich even richer, is the invention of the credit card, or what it really should be called "loans that nobody will ask any questions about that you'll pay through the nose for". When the banks give me the loan I need to buy a home, they'll turn my economy upside down and ensure that I can actually make my payments. Credit card loans on the other hand, are thrown at you.
Credit card industry greatly rewards those who are capable of making sound financial decisions, so I'm all for it. In fact, the credit card industry loses money on guys like me. Thus, I require a protective cushion of idiots for my own financial well being.
And to bring this thread back to its origins, wealth redistribution, it has to be said that one of the most succesful ways of keeping the poor poor and make the rich even richer, is the invention of the credit card, or what it really should be called "loans that nobody will ask any questions about that you'll pay through the nose for". When the banks give me the loan I need to buy a home, they'll turn my economy upside down and ensure that I can actually make my payments. Credit card loans on the other hand, are thrown at you.
While this is true, I don't think that even a radical move like eliminating credit cards will solve that problem. There are many, many businesses that thrive off of usurious interest rates. Everything from used car dealers to furniture stores to 'debt consolidation' agencies. If you want to see how bad this problem has gotten, you need look no further than Rent N' Roll (http://www.rnrwheels.com/). That's right... you can buy car tires and rims with a custom loan. As long as people are willing to take out loans to buy chrome rims, this problem will continue. Even without credit cards, people will find ways to get loans they cannot afford. Education needs to be the first line of defense. Once people know how to live off a balanced budget, the usurers will cease to be a problem.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 21:37
While this is true, I don't think that even a radical move like eliminating credit cards will solve that problem. There are many, many businesses that thrive off of usurious interest rates. Everything from used car dealers to furniture stores to 'debt consolidation' agencies. If you want to see how bad this problem has gotten, you need look no further than Rent N' Roll (http://www.rnrwheels.com/). That's right... you can buy car tires and rims with a custom loan. As long as people are willing to take out loans to buy chrome rims, this problem will continue. Even without credit cards, people will find ways to get loans they cannot afford. Education needs to be the first line of defense. Once people know how to live off a balanced budget, the usurers will cease to be a problem.
The problem is basically solved if the only ones providing irresponsible loans are black market loansharks.
Why it's a radical idea to demand that loan providers are responsible and make sure that the people they are lending money to are actually capable of repaying is quite frankly beyond me.
The people working at a bank have 3+ years of economic education. Of course they know more about how to handle your economy than you do, that's why they work at a bank and are allowed to lend money to people; they are supposed to use that knowledge to help people make sound economic choices, just like a mechanic is there to help you take care of your car.
Ironside
07-14-2010, 21:57
To be fair IA never stated that you did.
I personally would like the level of tac to be determined as to what benefits the economy most. I personally think that this would be in the low 20's, but I have only an amateur's interest in the subject.
~:smoking:
That one is an evil question, but I suspect that the answer is that it varies on how the money is spend. It can be noted that the big tax hikes in Sweden happened during massive growth and that growth was maintained for more than a decade with the very high taxes. Then after that is was severe economic downturn and the US passed Sweden in GDP/capita for example. Don't know the full economic backround for this (and if it's related and how), but evidently you can have high growth with high taxes. Purely based on GDP and total tax pressure data, going over 53% of the GDP as taxes income is bad in a few years time perspective. And the biggest mistake during that downturn was the right wing tax cuts (they got to power due to mishandled economy, but that was their own big mistake)...
As for the tax moral argument Horetore mentioned (fairness), it does exist signs that he has a point. One of the richest men in Sweden, H&M owner Stefan Persson refused to pay the 20% extra fortune tax on his income and threatened to move abroad. In a nice hypocratic move the goverment passed a very complicated law that de facto excempted 2 people from that tax (the other guy by accident). After massive critic on that they gave up and you don't pay fortune tax on that type of income (capital gains through stocks afaik).
Point is that he still lives in Sweden and still pays normal income tax, so he's still the most taxed person in Sweden. So he reacted not as much on the taxes as he did on the fairness in the taxing.
Hmm, when I asked my bank two years ago whether I could have a VISA card in addition to my master card, they looked at my income and said no, that would be too much of a credit margin for me.
What I don't entirely get though is the following:
I can spend/take money from my bank account until it is at -500, this can be either through my debit card, which is usually deducted the next day(or directly if I use an ATM terminal), or my MasterCard, where it goes to a seperate account which is then brought to 0 every month using money from my bank account. So if I theoretically had my bank account down to -500 and spent another 500 using my credit card, what would happen the next time they tried to get the money for my credit card from my bank account? Is that when I start to pay interest on my credit card debt? Is that the point where I have credit card debt in the first place? Will they allow me to pay it back in small monthly amounts like a loan then or what exactly happens at that point?
Please understand that I don't really want to go and try it myself. ~;)
Credit card industry greatly rewards those who are capable of making sound financial decisions, so I'm all for it.
Wrong.
Those who make sound financial decisions don't own a credit card, however, because of this, they do not have a credit rating, thus punished heavily when they apply for a loan or mortage.
Because of this, I had to actually get a credit card, and basically now and then, make a payment on it, then repay it straight away (so no interest charges), just to have a very high credit rating.
The problem is basically solved if the only ones providing irresponsible loans are black market loansharks.
Why it's a radical idea to demand that loan providers are responsible and make sure that the people they are lending money to are actually capable of repaying is quite frankly beyond me.
The people working at a bank have 3+ years of economic education. Of course they know more about how to handle your economy than you do, that's why they work at a bank and are allowed to lend money to people; they are supposed to use that knowledge to help people make sound economic choices, just like a mechanic is there to help you take care of your car.
I'm not an economist, far from it, but I do think you're right that this would certainly help. My instinct is to say that cracking down on all such loans will have some kind of negative impact on the economy, but for the life of me I can't imagine what it would be. So, perhaps that is a good first step. However, I still think the problem will continue until education improves. Maybe I'm just a pessimist about my fellow citizens, but I have difficulty believing that removing such loans alone will make people responsible with their own money. Some people will always spend every cent they get and not save anything for emergencies or retirement, there's no way to change that. Those people will end up in the same place they always do: broke and living off of meager welfare programs. I believe strongly that financial management and budgeting should be a mandatory part of basic public education, starting in middle (primary) school and continuing through high (secondary) school. We already use education to try and keep people physically healthy, we should do so to try and keep them economically healthy as well.
We already use education to try and keep people physically healthy, we should do so to try and keep them economically healthy as well.
Unfortunately, the school system fails utterly at this as they only concentrate on the ones already good at sports. Because of this, the "fat kids" become fat because they have no interest in the sports, because if you are not any good, you are sidelined, and it is utterly boring. They cater for "competition" opposed to simply "having fun". There is no emphasis on enjoyment or team fun. It is all about the select few which get lavished with praise, while the others suffer below a whip of punishment.
On the same notes, the school system fails in educational economic classes. You see these "road-shows" where they actually bring in professionals and people are like "Wow, we can save like £200 per month with assistance from the pros". What happens in school, is that you have a random teacher from random department go "blah blah blah, blah blah" either telling people what they already know, and not giving any sound economic advice.
There is the other thing too, Christmas, Easter, Birthdays, and other plights commercialisation.
HoreTore
07-14-2010, 22:47
I'm not an economist, far from it, but I do think you're right that this would certainly help. My instinct is to say that cracking down on all such loans will have some kind of negative impact on the economy, but for the life of me I can't imagine what it would be. So, perhaps that is a good first step. However, I still think the problem will continue until education improves. Maybe I'm just a pessimist about my fellow citizens, but I have difficulty believing that removing such loans alone will make people responsible with their own money. Some people will always spend every cent they get and not save anything for emergencies or retirement, there's no way to change that. Those people will end up in the same place they always do: broke and living off of meager welfare programs. I believe strongly that financial management and budgeting should be a mandatory part of basic public education, starting in middle (primary) school and continuing through high (secondary) school. We already use education to try and keep people physically healthy, we should do so to try and keep them economically healthy as well.
You're assuming that the people with irresponsible economies are uneducated and already poor. That's not true. Poor people can remain poor, sure, but to really screw up and throw yourself into debt you can never pay off, you need to be at least middle class. There's a TV-show here called "Luxury trap", I'm sure some form of it is shown in your countries too, as we never come up with our own tv-concepts... Anyway, the people on the show are all millions in debt. And their income? Well above the average wage, the kind of wages you'll need at least a bachelor degree to get.
The year the credit crisis hit, therre was an increase of people who couldn't pay off their bills. Which segment of society dominated that statistic? It wasn't the poor, it wasn't the working class, it was the educated and wealthy middle class who suddenly could not pay off their spending.
EDIT: Oh, and as for negative impacts of removing credit, it will of course lower consumption in the short term, in that it people won't be able to spend more than they make. That will, of course, be offset in the long term by the shift of money from the financial industry towards the productive areas of the economy(no more credit card interest income for the banks, which can be spent on buying goods instead) and the economy will adjust to the new reality.
A progressive income tax? Gather. Your. Armies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4
a completely inoffensive name
07-15-2010, 00:31
A progressive income tax? Gather. Your. Armies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4
lol! Reminds me of that Pandemic 2 meme.
http://knowyourmeme.com/i/6721/original/SHUTDOWNEVERYTHING.jpg?1248757301
You know what there needs to be more of? A socialist version of "Dragon's Den".
If I was elected, that is what I would be doing. Investing in the economy, which will make returns.
Crazed Rabbit
07-15-2010, 00:57
The only sure way to end the problems caused by stupid people abusing credit is to get rid of stupid people.
Other than that, education in public school is the best bet. Credit is a necessary part of life, and stupid people will go to great lengths to get it, so reducing credit availability won't stop the problem and will make it harder for people who want to use credit wisely.
CR
...Those who make sound financial decisions don't own a credit card...
Orly? Well let us examine this conundrum as I own not one but 3 credit cards. I use my Shell Mastercard to buy gas at 5% discount, I use my AMEX card wherever I can to accumulate points that get me free stuff, I use a Discover card wherever it's accepted for a cashback bonus. That's a lot of free stuff for nothing, as I've never owed a single dollar in interest payments having always made my payments on time. So there, I am a credit card company's worst nightmare, and they pay me for the privilege. If that's not so8und fiscal policy on my part, then I don't know what would be.
I believe Warren Buffet perfectly summarized the way every aspect of our economy works when he said that "The market like the Lord helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, it does not forgive those who know not what they are doing."
Devastatin Dave
07-15-2010, 02:17
I drop in from time to time and see things from time to time that make me question my sanity, from time to time. This time I realised its time to schedule a time with a good shrink because this time I agreed with Horetore. Wow, its time to go back in time and examine his posts more deligetnly because I must have missed some really good stuff. I think its time to drink.
I believe strongly that financial management and budgeting should be a mandatory part of basic public education, starting in middle (primary) school and continuing through high (secondary) school. We already use education to try and keep people physically healthy, we should do so to try and keep them economically healthy as well.
Other than that, education in public school is the best bet. Credit is a necessary part of life, and stupid people will go to great lengths to get it, so reducing credit availability won't stop the problem and will make it harder for people who want to use credit wisely.
CR
While I agree that people need to be educated on personal finance, I don't think the public education system is the best way to accomplish that. At my high school we were required to take a personal finance class. The teacher was very good for a high school teacher, but I don't think the class really made a difference. Most of the kids thought it was a "dumb, boring class" and probably forgot most of what they learned once the semester was over.
However I guess if financial education started with middle school and was constantly crammed down the student's throats for the rest of their public school career as TinCow has suggested, then it would make more a difference; similar to how most kids hate math, but remember how to do it because they were forced to learn it for 12 years (more or less).
I think financial education would be best emphasized in young adulthood, when people start having to live on their own for the first time. This can be done by local governments offering low cost/free personal finance classes, and/or having colleges and universities require personal finance classes for an Associate's degree.
Wrong.
Those who make sound financial decisions don't own a credit card, however, because of this, they do not have a credit rating, thus punished heavily when they apply for a loan or mortage.
Huh? I work at a fuel station and as a general trend you could say that the richer/wealthier people are more likely to pay with an American Express, or VISA Card, possibly a MasterCard.
I don't think they all became rich/wealthy because they didn't make sound financial decisions.
And I wonder why nobody seems able to answer my questions above, does a german credit card work differently from an english or american one, am I just stupid, or does nobody know?
Because of this, I had to actually get a credit card, and basically now and then, make a payment on it, then repay it straight away (so no interest charges), just to have a very high credit rating.
Hmm, another mystery, I wouldn't even know how to repay onto my credit card straight away, as I said, my bank balances it once a month, basically sets it to zero and takes/gives to difference from/to my bank account, quite frankly I don't know it any other way, not from my family or so either.
edit: It's a different account in the bank, isn't it? I think my home banking program just doesn't show it.
Centurion1
07-16-2010, 06:34
My mother finally started using her southwest airlines credit card for everything. We now have three tickets to san diego round trip. She alsos pays no interest. She is what the credit card companies call a dead beat. She is hated because she's not stupid and she literally loses them money.
Beskar I like being lavished with praise for my athletic talents and healthy body. Fat kids aren't punished unless you consider beingmade to exercise as a fat kid punishment. For every person with a uncontrollable weight problem there are 30 others who could bvery well contrl it. I don't make fun of fat people because its cruel and as I'm a football player half my friends on the team are fat ******. But sometimes for some (mind you some) people a little ridicule instead of acceptance would do them some damn good. For example I dislike fat girls who think they are hot and insist on revealing outfits and skintight clothing. Disgusting.
End rant/
rory_20_uk
07-16-2010, 10:01
The number who gunuinely have an "uncontrollable" weight problem are vastly less than 1%.
The number with low will power / sedentary jobs / lifestyles / ability to eat high calorie food is legion.
I'm overweight. I know it. Commute and hours are long but not physically strenuous. I get home tired and I don't bother to exercise much. I'm not as fit as I was at University when I went to the gym 3-4 times a week as it was a 5 min walk away.
Whose fault it it? Who I work for? TV adverts? Microsoft? No - me. I have a sweet tooth and am more lazy than I should be. I am ashamed things have got this bad and I intend to alter my lifestyle to rectify the situation. If I thought "I'm fat and I'm all that" then things would get worse.
Fatties need both the carrot and the stick - diet and exercise, and also some teasing - they're thick skinned enough after all...
~:smoking:
Huh? I work at a fuel station and as a general trend you could say that the richer/wealthier people are more likely to pay with an American Express, or VISA Card, possibly a MasterCard.
I don't think they all became rich/wealthy because they didn't make sound financial decisions.
Indeed.
If you pay with your credit card, you pay with the money of the credit card company. At the end of the month, they send you a bill. If you pay on time, you don't have to pay interests. This means that you can keep your own money on a savings account, where it grants you interests, then at the end of the month, you pay the credit card bill. You get the interests on your money and the credit card company gets it's money back without interest. That's a win-win for you. On top of it, paying with a credit card is comfortable and if something goes wrong, you have a big company to back you up.
And I wonder why nobody seems able to answer my questions above, does a german credit card work differently from an english or american one, am I just stupid, or does nobody know?
I don't think it works differently. You pay with the credit card; at the end of the month you pay the bill, if you pay on time : no interests, if you pay too late: scandalous amount of interest. As long as there are enough people paying too late, you can make profit by using a credit card and paying the bill on time.
Hmm, another mystery, I wouldn't even know how to repay onto my credit card straight away, as I said, my bank balances it once a month, basically sets it to zero and takes/gives to difference from/to my bank account, quite frankly I don't know it any other way, not from my family or so either.
You probably use what they call here a "domiciliëring". An order at the bank to automatically pay at a certain company the amount they bill you on a fixed time.
I get a letter each month, which allows me to have a certain control. If there's a payement on the credit card company bill with my card that I didn't do, then I can check things and, in case of fraud, warn the credit card company. No automatic paiement from my bank account; of course this means you mustn't lose your paperwork out of sight. Personally, I dislike such orders where paiements go automatically, I prefer to do the paiements manually, as it gives far more control over my budget. I want to know exactly how much is being spent and how much is still on our accounts at any given time. The only stuff that I allow to be payed automatically are the mortgage and insurances.
edit: It's a different account in the bank, isn't it? I think my home banking program just doesn't show it.
No, it's a credit line. You pay with the money of the credit card company. Then you pay back the credit card company what you owe them at the end of the month.
a completely inoffensive name
07-16-2010, 10:40
The number who gunuinely have an "uncontrollable" weight problem are vastly less than 1%.
The number with low will power / sedentary jobs / lifestyles / ability to eat high calorie food is legion.
I'm overweight. I know it. Commute and hours are long but not physically strenuous. I get home tired and I don't bother to exercise much. I'm not as fit as I was at University when I went to the gym 3-4 times a week as it was a 5 min walk away.
Whose fault it it? Who I work for? TV adverts? Microsoft? No - me. I have a sweet tooth and am more lazy than I should be. I am ashamed things have got this bad and I intend to alter my lifestyle to rectify the situation. If I thought "I'm fat and I'm all that" then things would get worse.
Fatties need both the carrot and the stick - diet and exercise, and also some teasing - they're thick skinned enough after all...
~:smoking:
But mamma always said I was just big boned.
rory_20_uk
07-16-2010, 11:02
I have a large frame. I'll never be a waif. The relative percentage of what's on that frame is up to me.
~:smoking:
I get a letter each month, which allows me to have a certain control. If there's a payement on the credit card company bill with my card that I didn't do, then I can check things and, in case of fraud, warn the credit card company. No automatic paiement from my bank account; of course this means you mustn't lose your paperwork out of sight. Personally, I dislike such orders where paiements go automatically, I prefer to do the paiements manually, as it gives far more control over my budget. I want to know exactly how much is being spent and how much is still on our accounts at any given time. The only stuff that I allow to be payed automatically are the mortgage and insurances.
Thanks for the answers.
I like the automatic payment, I tend to delay things if I have to do them myself, I let almost everybody just take the money from my account, but I check my account quite regularly. It has happened a few time that some company took too much money but I always got a refund when I called them and complained.
No, it's a credit line. You pay with the money of the credit card company. Then you pay back the credit card company what you owe them at the end of the month.
Hmm, what I mean is the only way I know to check my credit card "account" i.e. the money I owe Master Card, is to put my MasterCard into that automaton at the bank that will print out sheets with all the transactions from last time I did it. AFAIK there are home banking programs though that also show your credit card balance when you enter your normal bank account, it's just something I could use because this month I thought my credit card bill was around 70€ but it was only around 40€, I could have spent the other 30€ for something useless had I known that earlier. ~;)
Hmm, what I mean is the only way I know to check my credit card "account" i.e. the money I owe Master Card, is to put my MasterCard into that automaton at the bank that will print out sheets with all the transactions from last time I did it. AFAIK there are home banking programs though that also show your credit card balance when you enter your normal bank account, it's just something I could use because this month I thought my credit card bill was around 70€ but it was only around 40€, I could have spent the other 30€ for something useless had I known that earlier. ~;)
I have a VISA card and I can check my balance through my home banking program. The VISA card itself has the VISA logo, but also the name of my bank. Maybe you should aks your local bank agency if there is a way to link your credit card to your home banking or so?
Everyone should pay the same level of tax. If the tax level is 28%, then you should pay 28% whether you make 500.000 or 500.000.000 per year. It will probably be acceptable for everyone to lower the tax a little for those with low incomes, but those making around the average income in a country should pay the full tax - and those making more than that should pay the same.
So you are not a supporter of 'toppskatt' (surtax)?
About credit cards. If your job involves travel or buying stuff that your company should pay for, they normally issue you a personal corporate credit card. Your plane ticket and hotels are payed for by your card company and upon return you write a travel expense bill to your company, which puts that money into your bank account so you can pay the credit card bill.
This arrangement spares you of forking out 50 000 (€6.300) from your personal savings and then get it back later.
I usually use the debit card from my salary account bank which has a Visa add on in my everyday transactions. The Visa part enables me to pay for stuff abroad and I used it when living in Australia. If I ever travel outside business trips, I still use my Eurocard because there is a really good travel insurance deal on travels purchased with that card.
HoreTore
07-16-2010, 15:50
So you are not a supporter of 'toppskatt' (surtax)?
Bah, why shouldn't I be, the entrance point for it is so low now that it's just above the average wage...
Toppskatt isn't an extra tax for the rich, it's an extra tax for the middle class.
My mother finally started using her southwest airlines credit card for everything. We now have three tickets to san diego round trip. She alsos pays no interest. She is what the credit card companies call a dead beat. She is hated because she's not stupid and she literally loses them money.
Credit card companies can whine all they want about people who pay off their full bill every month, call them dead beats, say they cost them money. They can stuff it. When you use a credit card, the merchant has to pay the commission and interchange rate. Visa/Mastercard are getting a cut regardless.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.