'Murica! (143 Viewers)

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,663
40-50%? :shocked: Do you guys have progressive tax system or what? So 40-50% for everybody or just those who earn more?

--

And how much do you guys pay taxes in US&A since Fred thinks you pay a lot?
I think the income tax is anywhere between 0% and 39% depending on how much you earn. I think I read earlier this year (in Bloomberg) that the average was around 10%. But who knows, our tax system can be complicated at times.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
I don't follow. What you pay during a year in taxes from you paycheck, food, gas etc? Doesn't make much sense to me...and it's probably way less than what we pay here.
He could be referring to two different concepts here, the first one is the taxe revenue relative to the total GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP), being pretty self-explanatory I guess, the second one being a measure of how much of an individual income ends up being taxed. Basically, imagine you earn 2000€ and have a 30€ income tax+social security, so 14000€ left. Of that 1400 you spend 1000 on various goods & services with a VAT of 20%, so an additional 200€ go to the state. You've now got a 30% income tax rate, but in total 40% of your income has gone to the state.

Of course it's much much more complex in real life with a lot more taxes and transactions coming into play, but I hope you get the concept.
 

Lapa

FLY, EAGLES FLY
Sep 29, 2008
20,044
OK. 10% ain't bad but 39% surely is. Highest income tax here is over 50% and you need to pay that after you earn more than 90,000€ (31,75% is what you pay for the government, 16-22% for the state or whatever it should be called here).

- - - Updated - - -

He could be referring to two different concepts here, the first one is the taxe revenue relative to the total GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP), being pretty self-explanatory I guess, the second one being a measure of how much of an individual income ends up being taxed. Basically, imagine you earn 2000€ and have a 30€ income tax+social security, so 14000€ left. Of that 1400 you spend 1000 on various goods & services with a VAT of 20%, so an additional 200€ go to the state. You've now got a 30% income tax rate, but in total 40% of your income has gone to the state.

Of course it's much much more complex in real life with a lot more taxes and transactions coming into play, but I hope you get the concept.
OK. So I did follow after all. We pay something like 99% here when all taxes are included. :D
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,768
Ya, health care costs in the US are crazy, there's definitely something wrong with the system there.
It is the most expensive health care system around, and it's far from the best.

I just wish the people who rail against government inefficiency and waste were just as honest with our health care system instead of trying to preserve the status quo.
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,887
Do you guys think Trump actually has a chance to win?
Primaries, maybe. General election, probably not.
Reason: Candidates need to win enough delegates in state primaries in order to get the nomination. The system (for GOP) is set up in a way that for the primaries before March 15th 2016, delegates are assigned proportionally. After March 15, it's going to be a winner take all system. Since Trump is spending his own money, he has no good reason to drop out early unless his support goes below 10% or so. If that doesn't happen by the time of Iowa caucus (which is the first primary/caucus election) he might get a lot of delegates before March 15. In that case, as a front runner he might win a few big winner take all states as well. By the time of the Republican National Convention, he will be a force that cannot be ignored anymore. I personally think that his support will eventually go down before Iowa caucus.
Politicians tend to move to the right (or left in case of Dems) to appeal to their core. Their biggest challenge is how to spin what they say in primaries to appeal to a broader electorate in general election. The problem for Trump is, his comments are so ridiculous that the spin is nearly impossible. He already has alienated Latinos, Muslims, Women, etc. So it'll be too hard for him to come back.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,112
Has there been a degeneration in race relations?
All we hear about in MSM is how the cops are at odds against the blacks, the blacks are at odds with the cops, the whites are inherently racist against the blacks and hispanics, if you call illegal aliens illegals you are a racist, if you don't believe in sanctuary cities you're a racist, et cetera. So either the media is at fault for crying wolf, or we race relations have deteriorated since the turn of the century. To me, it's both.

It's not just autism. It's auto-immune disorders, obesity, etc. $#@!ing peanut allergies have swallowed up school systems.

So why are people quick to blame immunizations for all of that while there are people denying humans have anything to do with the climate? It all comes down to an emotional and illogical reaction. A lot of people don't like shots. And a lot of people have hyper-Big-Brother freak outs about mandating them, even if for the right reasons.

Sure, we do have a history of Tuskegee experiments. But people aren't objecting to immunizations because of the science and the data. They are just seeking anecdotal confirmations and confirmation bias to justify their emotional responses.
But even so, a lot of the anecdotal evidence points to an issue. So we can either have them continue to be unsolved mysteries, or these cases can be studied to determine if vaccines had any impact in causing some of these autoimmune responses.

It's also a little humorous how so many folks hate Wall Street and the military industrial complex, yet never ask questions about big pharma. All are special interest groups, so having government studies conducted by big pharma graduates is akin to having Jamie Dimon audit Goldman Sachs. Can't have it both ways.


I'll a take polemic 08/15 argument from a guy that probably didn't even watch the video for 2,15€ please.

Seriously though, that is really not what this guy, or any socialist/communist bar a few teenagers I've ever seen believes, it's just the typical strawman argument.
But what they fail to understand is simple macroeconomics and mathematics. In this country, not once have I witnessed a socialist develop, with evidence, a proposal for spending more on social programs while reducing the budget deficit. The fact of the matter is, you can't spend more than you generate from tax revenue ad infinitum. New social programs and freebies for all are always pushed by the left, but they have no idea how to pay for them, so they are nothing more than carnival barkers and financial terrorists.

A question for Americans:

You guys already pay a significant amount of income tax, what does your country provide to show for it? I mean correct me if I'm wrong here but in canada they pay comparable income tax rates and they have universal health care and subsidized education.

I mean most of you know I'm probably as right leaning as they get in this forum, but the way i see it, if I'm paying that much in taxes I'd like to see something to show for it.

That being said, if i were an American Ron Paul was probably the best candidate in the past few decades. I'd strongly be with someone that will push for reduced government spending, especially in areas like military spending where a bulk of the federal budget goes towards.
Hear hear!

So, here's what our tax dollars are spent on.

Healthcare -- ~28% -- Mostly medicaid and medicare benefits for a society already in poor health. Healthcare costs continue to increase and that won't change.
National defense -- ~24% -- Keeping us safe by providing arms to various militia groups that may eventually become hostile towards us. Great tactic.
Job and family security -- ~18% -- Sure, some of these benefits do help the jobless and poor, but the odds are stacked against these folks to begin with because of the economic policies supported by the federal government.
Interest payments -- ~10% -- This is what we pay to our creditors for borrowing beyond our means.

Speaking for myself, none of these programs directly benefit me in any way, unless we are invaded tomorrow. I also have a difficult time believing some of these programs will be available to my generation in the future, especially social security. This government will be tanked by then.

Oh we're taxed so much here, 40-50%. You'd think we'd get a better health care system/service with such high taxes.

Ah well.
But but but, it's FREE, it should be great!

TBH, nobody likes taxes. American taxes are among the lowest of civilized Western nations. But we complain about them being too high because, well, they're taxes. Which isn't to say they could be better managed or better optimized. Hellz yeah. But US taxes aren't that bad on a relative scale. One exception being that the US taxes citizens regardless of residence, unlike most other countries that will only tax income earned in-country.

What we get for it is another story. Mostly bureaucracy, like most taxes. A lot of debt payments/interest. Military and subsidies for the less fortunate, the ill, the poor, and the retired. Slap on some underfunded infrastructure, foreign aid, and that's about it.

As for health care, it's a mess. Our health care system is designed as a private payer denier system -- i.e., a huge number of people are employed with the sole purpose of refusing responsibility for a health care payment from one system to hoist it on some other institution. It's like going to a doctor's appointment, and you, the doctor, the nurse, the receptionist, etc., each have lawyers, and we pay these lawyers to argue over who covers what part of the bill. That's one of the major reasons the US health care system is dysfunctional, but there are others (another big one being no incentives to do things more cheaply).
We also have hidden taxes that we don't realize either -- through inflation. Much of this is due to Fed actions to keep the government funded.

The top quality education facilites are, but they're impossible to ever reach for the 98% of the population that isn't among the one most intelligent percent or the one most wealthy percent. For everyone else it's a broken system that leaves them indebted for large parts of their lives.
Similary, the US health care system works great for billionaires.



It's not about the elite, but the general population.
Have you ever considered that some folks aren't meant to go to college, but do so anyway? How about the relatively cheap student loans that folks use but don't have any aspirations to even graduate?
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,768
All we hear about in MSM is how the cops are at odds against the blacks, the blacks are at odds with the cops, the whites are inherently racist against the blacks and hispanics, if you call illegal aliens illegals you are a racist, if you don't believe in sanctuary cities you're a racist, et cetera. So either the media is at fault for crying wolf, or we race relations have deteriorated since the turn of the century. To me, it's both.
I think it comes down to that fact that our society has become intolerantly tolerant.

That and personal identity politics today is all wrapped up in how you're different and special from everyone else -- not in what you share in common with your fellow man.

But even so, a lot of the anecdotal evidence points to an issue. So we can either have them continue to be unsolved mysteries, or these cases can be studied to determine if vaccines had any impact in causing some of these autoimmune responses.
There is an issue, but to leap to vaccines as the cause without any evidence? And yet vaccines are one of the most highly researched potential vectors.

Occam's Razor, you know?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,112
I think it comes down to that fact that our society has become intolerantly tolerant.

That and personal identity politics today is all wrapped up in how you're different and special from everyone else -- not in what you share in common with your fellow man.
I agree with that, and it's part of the political correctness problem.


There is an issue, but to leap to vaccines as the cause without any evidence? And yet vaccines are one of the most highly researched potential vectors.

Occam's Razor, you know?
Right, so when one hears about stories of kids having convulsions hours after several doses of vaccines, one has to wonder.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,768
lets abolish vaccines, im tired of sitting in traffic
:lol:

My wife pointed out some new commercial development along my morning commute, asking what it was. I answered, "Just a source of more traffic."

Yeah, I'm tired of looking at all those fucking Baby on Board stickers.
:lol2: That crap should have went out with the 80s.

My "Baby in Wheel Well" idea never took off.

Nor "I Have a Meadowbrook High School Honor Roll Student... In My Trunk"...
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,112
:lol:

My wife pointed out some new commercial development along my morning commute, asking what it was. I answered, "Just a source of more traffic."



:lol2: That crap should have went out with the 80s.

My "Baby in Wheel Well" idea never took off.

Nor "I Have a Meadowbrook High School Honor Roll Student... In My Trunk"...
:lol: Both are hilarious.

Some joker at my company has one of those stick figure family stickers on the back of his truck, but the heads mesh together to say, "I hate your stick figure family." :lol:
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,768
:lol: Both are hilarious.

Some joker at my company has one of those stick figure family stickers on the back of his truck, but the heads mesh together to say, "I hate your stick figure family." :lol:
I've seen some of those... like dinosaurs devouring them with the phrase "My dinosaur ate your stick figure family". Weird sheeee%$t.
 

adRHCP

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2012
6,635
Primaries, maybe. General election, probably not.
Reason: Candidates need to win enough delegates in state primaries in order to get the nomination. The system (for GOP) is set up in a way that for the primaries before March 15th 2016, delegates are assigned proportionally. After March 15, it's going to be a winner take all system. Since Trump is spending his own money, he has no good reason to drop out early unless his support goes below 10% or so. If that doesn't happen by the time of Iowa caucus (which is the first primary/caucus election) he might get a lot of delegates before March 15. In that case, as a front runner he might win a few big winner take all states as well. By the time of the Republican National Convention, he will be a force that cannot be ignored anymore. I personally think that his support will eventually go down before Iowa caucus.
Politicians tend to move to the right (or left in case of Dems) to appeal to their core. Their biggest challenge is how to spin what they say in primaries to appeal to a broader electorate in general election. The problem for Trump is, his comments are so ridiculous that the spin is nearly impossible. He already has alienated Latinos, Muslims, Women, etc. So it'll be too hard for him to come back.
Thank you for taking your time to write this, I appreciate it.
I'll be reading more into this cause I'm a bit confused about it

People ask me this question all the time.:D
:lol: it's just logical, I bet they proceed to tell you how much they hate Trump and how racist he is :D personally I don't care too much about what he has to say but I'm interested because I'm gonna move to the States in a couple of years, and with everything he has said about deporting immigrants I'm afraid he could stop my papers or some shit :D
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,887
Thank you for taking your time to write this, I appreciate it.
I'll be reading more into this cause I'm a bit confused about it
I read what I wrote and it was indeed confusing. some important notes:

- Candidates from each party need to participate in primary elections to get the nomination
- Primary elections are held in different dates for different states (some share the same days though)
- Each state is assigned a number of "delegates". This basically means that if, for instance Donald Trump wins 20 delegates in Illinois primary, he can send 20 people to Republican National Convention
- I explained how delegates are assigned in each states' primary in the last post
- in each party's primary elections, usually the core base of that party has more presence than occasional voters. Therefore, Republicans tend to move to the right in the primary to appeal to this core.
- Politicians who can successfully spin their message to appeal to the general electorate has a higher chance of getting elected.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 111)