Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (26 Viewers)

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
71,836
No worries. I think it would be fair if it was % of wages or something.

But yeah, I heard it's 6-7e to make and a reasonable price around 20-25e in the sale.
it should really just be a fair price. At 20e, with the amount of sales worldwide, companies would make a killing.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
82,844
it should really just be a fair price. At 20e, with the amount of sales worldwide, companies would make a killing.
We had it for 50e here but they decided to raise the price so people would postpone their travels as they wanted price to demotivate the people. Kinda silly, if I wanted to travel and if I had to, I'd pay for the extra bucks as well. Stupid lies just to get more money into pockets.
 
OP
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
102,671
Trying to figure out that one myself as well :D. In fairness, there's a good social safety net for the workers.Those who lose their job remain to receive % of their previous income for several months.

It's progressive so the more you earn, the more you pay. First 60K are taxed at 37% and everything above 60K is taxed at a rate near 50%. An awful side effect of a progressive tax system (and also socialism/communism itself) is that the incentive of earning more and pursuing high end careers is gone for a lot of people. And the real wealthy will find loopholes in the tax laws and end up paying less. It's just the middle class that gets screwed over.
No doubt about that. So lets say you earn 100k and currently you're taxed at 50%. If they reduced the tax by 25% so that you keep an extra 25k per year, how much better off would you be? It sounds like it's not very easy to quantify the benefits of being taxed at 50%, so what justification is made that this is a fair tax schedule for everyone? I can't imagine the folks paying 50% are exercising most of the services they pay for.

- - - Updated - - -

Frankly speaking, the US is not far behind on taxes either. If you are not incorporated and are an employee, expect to pay federal taxes up to 37% of your income. Add state taxes and you’re well into the 40’s. And this doesn’t include health insurance.

Bottom line is: get incorporated.
Disclaimer: I don’t have much clue about taxes!!
Yes indeed. I paid approximately 40% in taxes last year, not counting capital gains. I will receive nothing back from the IRS, and will probably owe due to cap gains. What did I get back? Absolutely nothing. It's a waste of hard earned money and time.
 
Last edited:

icemaη

Rab's Husband - The Regista
Moderator
Aug 27, 2008
30,533
We had it for 50e here but they decided to raise the price so people would postpone their travels as they wanted price to demotivate the people. Kinda silly, if I wanted to travel and if I had to, I'd pay for the extra bucks as well. Stupid lies just to get more money into pockets.
It started of at around $50 here and now it's been reduced to $17 (free if you go to a government center) because getting more people tested is obviously better than not getting people tested.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,986
No doubt about that. So lets say you earn 100k and currently you're taxed at 50%. If they reduced the tax by 25% so that you keep an extra 25k per year, how much better off would you be? It sounds like it's not very easy to quantify the benefits of being taxed at 50%, so what justification is made that this is a fair tax schedule for everyone? I can't imagine the folks paying 50% are exercising most of the services they pay for.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes indeed. I paid approximately 40% in taxes last year, not counting capital gains. I will receive nothing back from the IRS, and will probably owe due to cap gains. What did I get back? Absolutely nothing. It's a waste of hard earned money and time.
No, of course you generally aren't using 50 percent.

Until you do.

Healthcare is the best example.

Everyone needs healthcare at some point and if you only have private health care at your disposal, expect to pay a fortune.

Taxes aren't inherently bad.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
76,816
  • swag

    swag

No doubt about that. So lets say you earn 100k and currently you're taxed at 50%. If they reduced the tax by 25% so that you keep an extra 25k per year, how much better off would you be? It sounds like it's not very easy to quantify the benefits of being taxed at 50%, so what justification is made that this is a fair tax schedule for everyone? I can't imagine the folks paying 50% are exercising most of the services they pay for.
That's a pretty transactional way of looking at it.

So maybe you don't get to use the public library because you have your own library at home with a personal librarian and barista. But maybe ensuring you can hire competent people and don't live in a crime-filled slum also depends on there being a public library.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,986
That's a pretty transactional way of looking at it.

So maybe you don't get to use the public library because you have your own library at home with a personal librarian and barista. But maybe ensuring you can hire competent people and don't live in a crime-filled slum also depends on there being a public library.
One could argue taxes make social mobility more likely.

If there's no public library, rich people will always be more educated than poor people, thus getting better jobs and getting even richer.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
76,816
  • swag

    swag

One could argue taxes make social mobility more likely.

If there's no public library, rich people will always be more educated than poor people, thus getting better jobs and getting even richer.
But at some level, rich people need poorer people to help make them rich. And often it is poorer people with more skills than the next oligarch paying poor people.
 
OP
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
102,671
No, of course you generally aren't using 50 percent.

Until you do.

Healthcare is the best example.

Everyone needs healthcare at some point and if you only have private health care at your disposal, expect to pay a fortune.

Taxes aren't inherently bad.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Paying 50% or whatever of your annual income for healthcare is just like the nursing home seizing all of your assets because you're on your death bed, except you're doing it when you're perfectly healthy. If you have a job and pay insurance, that cost isn't anywhere near 50% or whatever of your income. And if healthcare costs 50% of your annual income, that's ridiculously expensive unless you're having catastrophic health problems like cancer or heart failure every year.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a pretty transactional way of looking at it.

So maybe you don't get to use the public library because you have your own library at home with a personal librarian and barista. But maybe ensuring you can hire competent people and don't live in a crime-filled slum also depends on there being a public library.
But taxes are generally transactional. There should be transparency in how your tax dollars are being spent. If you don't really have a say in how those dollars are spent, or whether they're being spent efficiently, taxation is really nothing other than theft. So you can build your public libraries all over the place, but if it takes 50% of your income a year to operate it, I think I'll pass on the library and just support local businesses instead where people will actually work, learn, and create something instead of browse the internet all day.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2018
1,124
Unless you are on Medicaid or some other government assistance, health insurance is ridiculously expensive. For a family of 4, expect to pay anywhere from $1200-2000 per month. More fun is the added deductible of up to $10,000 and copays. Expect to pay $20,000 to 25000 per year for health insurance that will probably fight you all the way to get anything paid.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,986
Paying 50% or whatever of your annual income for healthcare is just like the nursing home seizing all of your assets because you're on your death bed, except you're doing it when you're perfectly healthy. If you have a job and pay insurance, that cost isn't anywhere near 50% or whatever of your income. And if healthcare costs 50% of your annual income, that's ridiculously expensive unless you're having catastrophic health problems like cancer or heart failure every year.

- - - Updated - - -



But taxes are generally transactional. There should be transparency in how your tax dollars are being spent. If you don't really have a say in how those dollars are spent, or whether they're being spent efficiently, taxation is really nothing other than theft. So you can build your public libraries all over the place, but if it takes 50% of your income a year to operate it, I think I'll pass on the library and just support local businesses instead where people will actually work, learn, and create something instead of browse the internet all day.
I don't pay 50 percent for healthcare alone.

I'm pretty sure you pay more for your healthcare than me by the way.

It's as if Americans seem to believe that, besides evidence to the contrary for as long as humans have walked the Earth, they will always be healthy and then suddenly die.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 20)

  • Gian