PDA

View Full Version : Tax Rates.


Foeni
26-12-2007, 09:39 PM
What's your view on it? In Denmark, you pay more taxes (in percent) the more your earn, ergo punishing those clever/smart/working enough to get the big salaries. Personally I think we should have the same tax rate regardless of your income, say 40%, as opposed to today, where you on the last stage pay 63% in income taxes (to this you need to add several other taxes). Basically what happens with a that high tax rate is that highly educated foreigners avoid going to Denmark to work (and we need more hands desperately), thus weakening the companies and our economy.

I know this will probably turn into brad and Randy arguing about the American conditions, but I thought I'd give this a try - we need some more interesting debates around here.

What do you think?

hasselbrad
26-12-2007, 09:44 PM
You are spot on. All the income tax does is penalize those who work hard. That's why it's unconstitutional...but why let that get in the way of allowing politicians to take your money before you ever see it.
Ask the average American what they paid in taxes last year and most will say "nothin'...I got a refund!"
Politicians love an electorate so willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

www.fairtax.org

Go there and read about what I support.

Ranman
26-12-2007, 09:45 PM
My view is if you make money you should pay taxes on it. If you make a lot you should pay alot. simple

hasselbrad
26-12-2007, 09:50 PM
My view is if you make money you should pay taxes on it. If you make a lot you should pay alot. simple

My view is that you should be taxed on what you consume, not what you produce.

Foeni
26-12-2007, 10:01 PM
My view is if you make money you should pay taxes on it. If you make a lot you should pay alot. simple
I think we need to pay taxes. At least if we have to keep a minimum of social services to help those really needing. But do you think you should have to pay a higher percentage the more you earn, Ran? With the same rate for everyone, people with big salaries will still pay more to society. I'm a liberal (hence my signature - althought the site isn't fully updated), I don't like the idea of punishing those who work hard so we can pay for those who won't.

Ranman
26-12-2007, 10:18 PM
Fo it depend on how much more you make. see her in America the richest people don't mind paying taxes, A while back the top ten richest people all said there should be a tax hike. The problem lies with the people with a few million dollars. They are the ones behind all this cut tax talk. You know if we went back to the clinton taxes Brad wouldn't pay anything extra, he doesnt make enough. Only people like my dad and his crooked friends would pay up. Like I said in the shoutbox, my dad probably paid less in actual taxes than Brad did last year. And belive me he didnt invest all that money he saved in jobs for the lower class, This is a crime against America.

Katielondon
26-12-2007, 11:48 PM
i think the tax rate should be the same for everyone and should be below 25%, why should people who work harder or have a better job pay more.

rani
27-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Tax rate should be progressive in a sense that it is proportionate to your income.

Please read 2 Corinthians 8:15, 13-14.

Tax is a medium where financial resources could be distributed among men.

Rich must help the poor. but how or what is the easier way to do it. Pay more taxes.

The taxes you pay could help the poor in their lives. education, health, etc.

Thru tax, rich people like you will never have a burden of giving aid or financial needs to the needy every time they need it. the government is there to administer your help to the poor. (see, it is a help not a finacial burden. but this is in a context of a society free of corruption).

Digital_Ice
27-12-2007, 01:46 PM
read 2 Corinthians 15, 13-14.

wtf has that got to do with anything?
Theres only 13 chapters is 2 Corinthians numnuts

barrington
27-12-2007, 02:16 PM
Temper. 2.

Ranman
27-12-2007, 02:25 PM
wtf has that got to do with anything?
Theres only 13 chapters is 2 Corinthians numnuts

wernt they gonna add a line to that Christmas song

13 penguins a pecking

hasselbrad
27-12-2007, 02:27 PM
wtf has that got to do with anything?
Theres only 13 chapters is 2 Corinthians numnuts

It's his way of saying socialism is the way of God.
Whatever.

As for the merit of a National Sales Tax, in 2004, Americans spent around $8,200,000,000,000. Adjust that by the roughly 21% drop that would occur once the income tax component is removed from consumer prices and you've got roughly $6,478,000,000,000 in consumer spending.
Based on a 23% national sales tax, that works out to around $1,489,940,000,000 in tax revenue. Which, is roughly what the federal government collected in taxes in 2004.
It's revenue neutral. Of course, when a married couple pulling in a combined $100,000 a year have $18,115 more to spend, tax revenues will undoubtably go up.

Foeni
27-12-2007, 03:46 PM
Tax rate should be progressive in a sense that it is proportionate to your income.

Please stay with the standard font. Bloody annoying.

Please explain to me, why I have to pay more taxes (in percent) because I work harder than some lazy arse that'll rather sit on his arse and whine about being poor? (Yes, I know some really are poor and all, but I was making a point) I work harder, so why shouldn't I benefit from it? Talk about taking about the advantage of educating yourself properly and work hard away.

Tax is a medium where financial resources could be distributed among men.

Rich must help the poor. but how or what is the easier way to do it. Pay more taxes.

The taxes you pay could help the poor in their lives. education, health, etc.

Thru tax, rich people like you will never have a burden of giving aid or financial needs to the needy every time they need it. the government is there to administer your help to the poor. (see, it is a help not a finacial burden. but this is in a context of a society free of corruption).
Rich must not help the poor. Not that I don't want to help people in need, I just don't need a government to tell me how much of my salary I spend and who I help. I'm perfectly able to do that myself.

Leonie
27-12-2007, 08:23 PM
Please explain to me, why I have to pay more taxes (in percent) because I work harder than some lazy arse that'll rather sit on his arse and whine about being poor? (Yes, I know some really are poor and all, but I was making a point) I work harder, so why shouldn't I benefit from it? Talk about taking about the advantage of educating yourself properly and work hard away.

As much as I agree with the general sentiment, I have to point out that not everyone is born with the same opportunities in life. As such, a lower income is not by any means directly proportionate to how lazy someone is.

Moreover, just because you work harder doesn't mean you earn more. It just doesn't. Some fields of work pay less than others, but should no one choose to fill those jobs, society as a whole would suffer.

Finally, everyone deserves a basic standard of health care, in my opinion. Everyone deserves an education. In the Netherlands, a large chunk of tax revenue is invested in keeping university tuition fees low, so that most everyone, regardless of background, can go to any university they please, provided they made it through uni prep high school (it's a three level system here, graduation from the top level will get you into any university except med school and honour colleges.)

The local baker doesn't earn as much as a CEO, but should he pay the same taxes as you, your bread would be a whole lot more expensive, or bakers a lot rarer to come by.

A very low tax level for all incomes isn't a viable solution. I think there should be some variance, though not to the tune of losing more than half of what you earn to the tax man. That's too much and just plain silly.

Foeni
27-12-2007, 09:53 PM
As much as I agree with the general sentiment, I have to point out that not everyone is born with the same opportunities in life. As such, a lower income is not by any means directly proportionate to how lazy someone is.
I agree. I know I was exaggerating, but only to make my point more clear. Obviously, I failed :|
However, my point is this: If you work hard and or makes a lot of money, that often means you in some way are contributing to our society a lot. Why should you be punished for that? I don't see the sense in making those fortunate/clever/hard working enough to make big salaries have to have a higher tax rate. We all talk to much about all to be equals, but we're not equals if one have to pay a higher tax rate.
Yes, I know not everyone is born with the same opportunities in life, and I don't want to punish them economically either. But the problem is, that for some they only work to a certain limit. Not because they can't or won't work more, but simply because they'll earn less after taxes. And that's riddicolous, especially since we are in desperat need of labour.

Moreover, just because you work harder doesn't mean you earn more. It just doesn't. Some fields of work pay less than others, but should no one choose to fill those jobs, society as a whole would suffer.
Yeah, tell me about it. I work in retail, traditionally not something that pays a lot.

Finally, everyone deserves a basic standard of health care, in my opinion. Everyone deserves an education. In the Netherlands, a large chunk of tax revenue is invested in keeping university tuition fees low, so that most everyone, regardless of background, can go to any university they please, provided they made it through uni prep high school (it's a three level system here, graduation from the top level will get you into any university except med school and honour colleges.)
Agreed. We have the system in Denmark (almost), but free universities, we even pay the students from $700 and more each month to help pay the bill so they can focus on studies. I don't fully agree with the system, but it'd require a lot of changes in our society to change that.

The local baker doesn't earn as much as a CEO, but should he pay the same taxes as you, your bread would be a whole lot more expensive, or bakers a lot rarer to come by.
He should pay the same taxes. In percent.

A very low tax level for all incomes isn't a viable solution. I think there should be some variance, though not to the tune of losing more than half of what you earn to the tax man. That's too much and just plain silly.
Hreh, those who pay the most in taxes in Denmark pay 63% income taxes.
I disagree with you. Everyone should be equal when it comes to that, but I've explained why earlier in this long rant.

Katielondon
27-12-2007, 11:16 PM
Tax rate should be progressive in a sense that it is proportionate to your income.

Please read 2 Corinthians 15, 13-14.

Tax is a medium where financial resources could be distributed among men.

Rich must help the poor. but how or what is the easier way to do it. Pay more taxes.

The taxes you pay could help the poor in their lives. education, health, etc.

Thru tax, rich people like you will never have a burden of giving aid or financial needs to the needy every time they need it. the government is there to administer your help to the poor. (see, it is a help not a finacial burden. but this is in a context of a society free of corruption).


Socialism is shit.

rani
27-12-2007, 11:48 PM
i mean 2Corinthians Chapter Eight; verse 15, 13-14.

in addition 1 Timothy 6:17-19.

thanks and pardon for inconvenience due to typographical error.

hope you will join me in this belief.

and this is Christianism not Socialism if you are not arrogant, please be corrected.

It is not surprising if there are some disagree with me. Even Jesus Christ is persecuted and His teachings are rejected by most, how could a servant like me will be better than his Lord?

Katielondon
28-12-2007, 12:01 AM
i mean 2Corinthians Chapter Eight; verse 15, 13-14.

in addition 1 Timothy 6:17-19.

thanks and pardon for inconvenience due to typographical error.

hope you will join me in this belief.

and this is Christianism not Socialism if you are not arrogant, please be corrected.

It is not surprising if there are some disagree with me. Even Jesus Christ is persecuted and His teachings are rejected by most, how could a servant like me will be better than his Lord?

hardly any of us are Christian here though, most of us are Scientologists.

Digital_Ice
28-12-2007, 01:13 AM
pmsl!

hasselbrad
28-12-2007, 04:26 AM
hardly any of us are Christian here though, most of us are Scientologists.

:D

Would the baker feel the need to go out and buy a new Mercedes every few years? A brand new, $1200 set of golf clubs?
On the other hand, would the CEO pulling down six figures be willing to pull up in front of the country club in a used Toyota Camry and play with a five year old set of clubs?
By taxing on consumption, you create the fairest set of taxation standards possible. It's left up to the individual to decide when and where they are willing to pay the tax. And, a consistent revenue stream for the government can be created.
As it stands, the IRS estimates it would cost $300,000,000,000 to collect the $100,000,000,000 in outstanding/unpaid taxes. Not exactly the most efficient revenue stream, huh? The income tax simply isn't an efficient way to collect taxes, and untold billions are wasted in the process.

Leonie
28-12-2007, 05:59 AM
I actually agree that tax through consumption would most likely be the fairest way to go about it, because everyone would have more to spend, and a better choice of what to spend it on.

The only pitfal is that, given the fluctuation of faith in the (world) economy today, people might scrooge altogether. I mean, logically, they'd have more money to spend, and the regular choice of what to spend it on, but for some reason, I don't trust the general public not to go "Everything's got so EXPENSIVE. I think I'll just stop buying anything except the necessities."

Odds are the necessities will get really expensive as a consequence, heavily taxed if you will, because the government would need to a certain amount of tax money coming in. Although I agree with the principle I'm worried about the execution.

While we're at it, I think it'd be a great idea if things were taxed according to how environmentally friendly they are. Want a big Hummer? Sure, but you're going to pay big time.

rani
28-12-2007, 06:58 AM
hardly any of us are Christian here though, most of us are Scientologists.


whatever you are..

but you can not identify neither distinguished the two things. Christian and Socialist thoughts.

As far as I know, Scientologists do not speak things unfounded or based on feeling or opinion.

You called Socialist a shit as a reaction to my insight about tax. you missed it. it is christian not socialist. now what do you call Christian?

anyway for your information, socialists believe in a very minimal tax some socialists are for the abolition of tax. they get the money as blood for the government to live, run and serve the people from their natural resources like oil, valuable stones and minerals, agricultural and industrial output. no tax. i hope this could light you a little to know the difference.

asshole! (since you called us shit, and that word comes from you).

Leonie
28-12-2007, 07:29 AM
You really haven't a clue what you're talking about, have you?

There is no such thing as a Socialist View on Taxes. That's like saying there's one Christian view of baptism...

hasselbrad
28-12-2007, 12:59 PM
I actually agree that tax through consumption would most likely be the fairest way to go about it, because everyone would have more to spend, and a better choice of what to spend it on.
In a nutshell...
The only pitfal is that, given the fluctuation of faith in the (world) economy today, people might scrooge altogether. I mean, logically, they'd have more money to spend, and the regular choice of what to spend it on, but for some reason, I don't trust the general public not to go "Everything's got so EXPENSIVE. I think I'll just stop buying anything except the necessities."
I don't. We have places where you can rent to own big fancy "dubs" and "spinners" for your car. The average T-Mobile customer (anecdotal, from a rep) buys a new phone every four months. People are now going into foreclosure because they stripped all of the equity out of their homes with ridiculous sub-prime loans so that they could afford to put in home theaters like they see on television. Whatever extra percentage of income that would result from the abolition of the income tax would certainly be doubled on the spending side of the equation. More goods purchased equals more jobs and better pay. Which, in turn, puts more money into the economy.
Odds are the necessities will get really expensive as a consequence, heavily taxed if you will, because the government would need to a certain amount of tax money coming in. Although I agree with the principle I'm worried about the execution.
Through the plan laid out in the Fair Tax, a prebate check would be issued based on the number within the household to cover the amount of tax that would be charged on the necessities, such as food and medication. As it did when a federal airline tax was allowed to sunset before Congress could get back in session a few years back, the removal of a tax component causes an almost immediate drop in prices due to competition. I think that increased competition in the marketplace will lead to ultimately lower prices on a lot of items.
While we're at it, I think it'd be a great idea if things were taxed according to how environmentally friendly they are. Want a big Hummer? Sure, but you're going to pay big time.
As much as I agree, another key component to this taxation plan is that nothing can be taxed more heavily or exempted. That's part of the problem with our tax code as it stands. There are far too many lobbyists, from far too many industries, all trying to get their industries to pay as little of their fair share as possible. If you start opening up loopholes for exemption, everyone will try to fit their industry through said loopholes.

Katielondon
28-12-2007, 06:53 PM
whatever you are..

but you can not identify neither distinguished the two things. Christian and Socialist thoughts.

As far as I know, Scientologists do not speak things unfounded or based on feeling or opinion.

You called Socialist a shit as a reaction to my insight about tax. you missed it. it is christian not socialist. now what do you call Christian?

anyway for your information, socialists believe in a very minimal tax some socialists are for the abolition of tax. they get the money as blood for the government to live, run and serve the people from their natural resources like oil, valuable stones and minerals, agricultural and industrial output. no tax. i hope this could light you a little to know the difference.

asshole! (since you called us shit, and that word comes from you).

i believe in Capitalism, greed is good, conspicious consumption, get to the top, big V8 4x4s that do 12 MPG being a good thing not a bad one and lastly i believe along with everyone else here in Xenu, wow some people really are nuts to believe that Christianity stuff, i mean the world was created in 7 days and all that, crazy stuff there.

Ranman
28-12-2007, 06:58 PM
I'm a Christain, use to be Catholic but I moved on. I'll have no part of your heathen religion.

rani
29-12-2007, 07:30 AM
i believe in Capitalism, greed is good, conspicious consumption, get to the top, big V8 4x4s that do 12 MPG being a good thing not a bad one and lastly i believe along with everyone else here in Xenu, wow some people really are nuts to believe that Christianity stuff, i mean the world was created in 7 days and all that, crazy stuff there.


you are quite uneducated. you said you love capitalism but you hate paying more tax it (tax) is part and parcel of capitalism.

greed is good as you said so why are you opposing the government to collect tax (it is part of its greediness) you must love paying taxes...more and more.

another ignorance, you do not know that in socialist countries you can even have private planes.

if Christianity is nut then you and your i.q. level could not even level to that of a fool. you reason illogically and cannot speak of things substantiated with truth and facts or at least valid ideas.

i pity you, you have a very limited knowledge and i hope you learned it from books (at least you studied a little) not from hearsay.

going back to tax issue and for others' benefit of being informed, an Australian parliament aide informed me that Aussies are taxed for a new or additional child. Not for population concern but environmental. A new born child is a new born carbon producer.

Leonie
29-12-2007, 09:06 AM
Sadly, you, too, are a complete moron. I pity your lack of knowledge about capitalising the first letter of each sentence.

Aussies get money for each child they bring into the world.

Liam
29-12-2007, 10:43 AM
going back to tax issue and for others' benefit of being informed, an Australian parliament aide informed me that Aussies are taxed for a new or additional child. Not for population concern but environmental. A new born child is a new born carbon producer.

Au contraire.

The government pays out a 'baby bonus' for each child born, a tax free lump sum payment. Environmental concern is a new concept here.

I wont jump on the anti-religion bandwagon like everyone else (it doesnt make you look smart, and its tired - get a new cause) but you may want to check your facts before you jump down everyone elses throats.

Just a tip.

Katielondon
29-12-2007, 08:48 PM
you are quite uneducated. you said you love capitalism but you hate paying more tax it (tax) is part and parcel of capitalism.

greed is good as you said so why are you opposing the government to collect tax (it is part of its greediness) you must love paying taxes...more and more.

another ignorance, you do not know that in socialist countries you can even have private planes.

if Christianity is nut then you and your i.q. level could not even level to that of a fool. you reason illogically and cannot speak of things substantiated with truth and facts or at least valid ideas.

i pity you, you have a very limited knowledge and i hope you learned it from books (at least you studied a little) not from hearsay.

going back to tax issue and for others' benefit of being informed, an Australian parliament aide informed me that Aussies are taxed for a new or additional child. Not for population concern but environmental. A new born child is a new born carbon producer.

not really very well educated in the ways of irony are you?, on the question of tax i resent paying it because most governments(especially the UK one) are incredibly incompetent.

Leonie
29-12-2007, 09:05 PM
I doubt things would be better without tax, though. Better incompetent tax spending, than no money to spend on social security at all, I'd say.

Katielondon
29-12-2007, 09:36 PM
I doubt things would be better without tax, though. Better incompetent tax spending, than no money to spend on social security at all, I'd say.

i dont think tax should be abolished i think it should be set at a fixed percentage so everyone has the same percentage of their wages taken which seems more fair, i also think governments should be more closely monitored and scrutinized on how they spend taxes it has been well documented that the govenment in power here has wasted billions, billions that could have been put to so much better use, the amount of burcracy and un needed civil servants that cost us a lot that could be used for much better things like improving our hospitals and expanding our exhausted road system, i am sure it is a similar case for other governments of the world and this is my main issue with tax.

rani
30-12-2007, 05:21 AM
Sadly, you, too, are a complete moron. I pity your lack of knowledge about capitalising the first letter of each sentence.

Aussies get money for each child they bring into the world.


you are trying to be intelligent but it shows that you are describing yourself...A COMPLETE MORON.

Tax is not just for money generation but one of the ways of discouraging the constituents to do something in excess. What is your political inclination...or degree? you need a remedial class!

rani
30-12-2007, 05:26 AM
i dont think tax should be abolished i think it should be set at a fixed percentage so everyone has the same percentage of their wages taken which seems more fair, i also think governments should be more closely monitored and scrutinized on how they spend taxes it has been well documented that the govenment in power here has wasted billions, billions that could have been put to so much better use, the amount of burcracy and un needed civil servants that cost us a lot that could be used for much better things like improving our hospitals and expanding our exhausted road system, i am sure it is a similar case for other governments of the world and this is my main issue with tax.


"first impression lasts"..this is not working on me.

I am starting to erase my negative impression about you. i agree with you.:)

inefficiency in the government makes the government more needy for taxes.

fixed percentage (income tax) somehow could be fair but there are needs for exemptions for the lower income brackets.

discriminatory taxation on sales tax or value added tax is fair for both rich and the poor. fixed percentage on this is not fair for the poor. FLIGHTFREAK will be correct...it will worsen the rich-poor gap.

Liam
30-12-2007, 10:08 AM
I note that you seem to have a problem acknowledging fact but you dont seem to take issue with making up stories.

The fact is that parents are paid a bonus for new children in Australia, not the opposite as you assert. I dont know which 'government aide' you were speaking to, but its pretty clear that they arent anything to do with the government in any capacity.

I quote from the Centrelink website (look for yourself here (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_maty.htm))

Baby Bonus is indexed in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in March and September each year.

This payment rate is effective from 20 September 2007 and is only paid for babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2004. Baby Bonus is paid as a non-taxable lump sum payment. Payment is made into a bank or credit union account and not through the tax system.

This payment is not subject to an income test.
This payment is not subject to an assets test.

The payment is on a per child basis and currently stands at over $4100.

I assume your argument is based upon a report by a medical expert who claims that each family should be taxed for the third child and beyond as a kind of environmental levy. The report also suggests giving sterilised couples carbon credits. Joy! (News story: here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html).)

Please clarify what you meant by 'government aide' and what said aide was doing making up stories on our medical and environmental policies.

Thanks.

Leonie
30-12-2007, 10:53 AM
you are trying to be intelligent but it shows that you are describing yourself...A COMPLETE MORON.

Tax is not just for money generation but one of the ways of discouraging the constituents to do something in excess. What is your political inclination...or degree? you need a remedial class!

You want to know how intelligent I am? Well, for starters, English is a second language for me, as it is for you. It's one I only started to learn in high school. I think I'm doing a better job of speaking it understandably than you are, since I can't for the life of me work out what you mean by the last bit of your post. I'm really happy you've worked out capital letters, though.

Now, what is my political inclination... I am leaning toward the right wing of the political spectrum. What is my degree? I've got a BA with honours (only .02 short of a cum laude degree, actually), currently working on an MA, both are done in English. Now, what do I need a remedial class for?

PS. If you are what you call other people, since you called Katie uneducated and an asshole... I would not have called you anything had you not insulted members of the KKW board that didn't deserve it in the slightest. And now that you've called me a moron back... Heh.

Foeni
30-12-2007, 11:10 AM
The same fixed percentage for everyone would only result in a tax raise for the majority of the people and a descent for a select rich few. Whether tax money is spilled or not at the end of the year the government will need to have received a certain amount of tax money. Unless you're in the top tax 'layers' you don't want a fixed percentage. It would only enlarge the wealth gap between 'poor' and 'rich'.
You are jumping to conclusions there, Pete. Setting a fixed rate for everyone doesn't neccesarily mean you have to set a high rate. Maybe around 40%? That would be a massive decrease for most of the population (at least in Denmark it would). And it shouldn't stand alone, you'll need to make changes in what the government should pay for and what it shouldn't.

rani, please refrain from flaming other members.

rani
31-12-2007, 02:38 AM
Au contraire.

The government pays out a 'baby bonus' for each child born, a tax free lump sum payment. Environmental concern is a new concept here.

I wont jump on the anti-religion bandwagon like everyone else (it doesnt make you look smart, and its tired - get a new cause) but you may want to check your facts before you jump down everyone elses throats.

Just a tip.

Whatever i look like for you, smart or not. it is just a sharing of info and i am glad that here is an aussie. i expect for another version, for me to clarify the contradiction of information but i what i got is prejudgement from an arrogant aussie who feels he is strucked on his throat.

why are you like others are very easy to judged and label others? but your quickness to do such is as quick you display your foolishness. very careless.

I note that you seem to have a problem acknowledging fact but you dont seem to take issue with making up stories.

The fact is that parents are paid a bonus for new children in Australia, not the opposite as you assert. I dont know which 'government aide' you were speaking to, but its pretty clear that they arent anything to do with the government in any capacity.

I quote from the Centrelink website (look for yourself here (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_maty.htm))

Baby Bonus is indexed in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in March and September each year.

This payment rate is effective from 20 September 2007 and is only paid for babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2004. Baby Bonus is paid as a non-taxable lump sum payment. Payment is made into a bank or credit union account and not through the tax system.

This payment is not subject to an income test.
This payment is not subject to an assets test.

The payment is on a per child basis and currently stands at over $4100.

I assume your argument is based upon a report by a medical expert who claims that each family should be taxed for the third child and beyond as a kind of environmental levy. The report also suggests giving sterilised couples carbon credits. Joy! (News story: here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html).)

Please clarify what you meant by 'government aide' and what said aide was doing making up stories on our medical and environmental policies.

Thanks.

read again what you have posted. you answered all your questions. if seems to you a contradiction then it is not so. it is matter of time difference. an actual law and proposal. i did not argue but inform you of the aussie development about tax.

an aide is a staff who is working in your government. and informed me that there is a proposal taxing the family for additional child. i do not give a heck. but share it to you. let aussies deal with your issues. we are here just to share ideas. and for intellectual orgasm.

and my problem is not focus on aussies but on people who are stupid in making reactions.

it is very easy to be gentlemen and ladies but you and others use ungentlemen remarks and unparliamentary as if you are not taught by your parents good manners and not have sent to school.

rani
31-12-2007, 03:23 AM
You want to know how intelligent I am? Well, for starters, English is a second language for me, as it is for you. It's one I only started to learn in high school. I think I'm doing a better job of speaking it understandably than you are, since I can't for the life of me work out what you mean by the last bit of your post. I'm really happy you've worked out capital letters, though.

Now, what is my political inclination... I am leaning toward the right wing of the political spectrum. What is my degree? I've got a BA with honours (only .02 short of a cum laude degree, actually), currently working on an MA, both are done in English. Now, what do I need a remedial class for?

PS. If you are what you call other people, since you called Katie uneducated and an asshole... I would not have called you anything had you not insulted members of the KKW board that didn't deserve it in the slightest. And now that you've called me a moron back... Heh.


i just give her (katie) lessons she is the one who started it. she used the term shit. do you think educated people use the term?

you called me a complete moron and now boasting your educ and degrees and honors. and your english skills competency.

calling people with degrading and discriminating labels are used by the uncivilised and barbarians. so as your lesson.

you (who used degrading and discriminating terminologies) are lucky because this is a cyber open forum.

if you use them in any physical plenary or parliament, your ass will be kick out of it if not slapped to swallow your labels.

do not be arrogants young ones, you are potentials, you can argue, you are vocals and catalysts you are learned. just change your attitude. some of you might be prime ministers, lawmakers, executives. future leaders.

but you need correct orientation and attitudes otherwise histories (poor governance) repeat themselves. look what do you mean "right wing", are you a fascist?

communism is not a single line. there are several communist perspectives.

as well as socialism. capitalism has different paradigms too.

have you ever heared Christian Communist?

In making policies, laws, there are Political ideologies behind the formulation. Ideologies where visions are set.

Tax for example you may say it is just or unjust dependent on how you envision you society (country) vis a vis internationl community.

in one of my posts here and and flightfreak's, if we envision a society that is free of poor people, all are enjoying life, properties, liberty and happiness. how an equal fixed percentage tax could achieved this?

say a rich man with disposable income of $5000
a poor man with disposable income of $ 900

the cost of standard of living is say $ 2000 based on average disposable expenditures.

a rich man will have a saving of $3000. This (once accumulated)can be used for his car or new home.

a poor man can not afford to pay for $2000. if he forced himself, he will be indebted by $1,100 or he simply accept the substandards in life.

compute with the same figures but this time with tax. 10% applied to both rich and poor.

the rich man still have a saving of $2800 but the poor man, tax could worsen his life. he will be indebted by $1300 or his life is soooo substandard.

see. it (regressive tax) widens the rich-poor gap. it weakens the purchasing power of the poor but no effect at all to rich.

anyway. please read the verses I ve mentioned if you are Christians and in addition to that Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to "give to Ceasar what is to Ceasar's".

if you are not then be conscientious.

hasselbrad
31-12-2007, 04:22 AM
Was it really necessary to post that jibberish twice?

This reminds me of an old song...

You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Leonie.

She makes cogent points. You just seem to type big words that you read in a Thesaurus.

Liam
31-12-2007, 06:21 AM
You missed my point. I was giving an element of support to your religious argument and attempted to put down those who used your religious position as ammunition against you. If you took the time to read and properly digest posts, this would not be an issue.

I am aware that English is a second language for you but please make a stronger attempt to understand the posts of others and make yours more readable.

Leonie
31-12-2007, 08:23 AM
I wasn't being arrogant, I was trying to show that I was more educated than you may have thought. Give me a bit of credit here, I work hard enough for it.

The fact that you equal "leaning toward the right wing of the political spectrum" and "fascist" tells me all I need to know. I at least make an effort to understand what you mean, I don't think you're doing me the same courtesy.

I'm Dutch, for crying in a bucket, my family put their lives on the line to fight fascism sixty years ago and I'm incredibly proud of them and not suffering from the slightest inclination to undo their work.

Lastly, what makes you believe you get to teach Katie, or me, lessons of a moral or religious nature? You who accuse others of arrogance? Just because we disagree with you does not mean we need teaching, sir. I know a lot of very educated people who use the term "shit" all the time. They are people with a sense of humour. They're also educated people who know that the word "moron" isn't in any way discriminatory. And "foolish", "arrogant" Liam here is one of them.

Foeni
01-01-2008, 02:59 PM
You tell me who’s going to fill in the tax gap that will arise when you put the same fixed percentage over all these people?
Pete, you're right that the government will need a certain amount every year. But that amount is the sum of all expenses. What I'm saying is, we wouldn't need an amount that big, if the government had less expenses. We need something for infrastructure, police etc. What I don't think we need is the government to pay for retirement pension and other sorts of financial aid for people that doesn't really need it. Everyone in Denmark gets retirement pension when they reach a certain age. Cut off all unneccesary expenses and you will have enough money without raising the taxes for lower incomes.
You also need to calculate with the dynamic effects. If people get more of what they earn to themselves, most people will work more, thus still paying lots in taxes. I happen to have discussed this subject with the leading department leaders in our ministry of finance, so I know a bit about it (I don't know all the numbers and figures, though)
I know what I say might sound a bit simple, but my English isn't good enough to argue into details.

Try and compare your tax rates with ours.
On an average, our income taxes go from 40% to 63%. Most people in Denmark pay more than 50% in taxes. I think a fixed rate on about 40% sounds pretty good.


Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

hasselbrad
01-01-2008, 04:36 PM
Pete, you're right that the government will need a certain amount every year. But that amount is the sum of all expenses. What I'm saying is, we wouldn't need an amount that big, if the government had less expenses. We need something for infrastructure, police etc. What I don't think we need is the government to pay for retirement pension and other sorts of financial aid for people that doesn't really need it. Everyone in Denmark gets retirement pension when they reach a certain age. Cut off all unneccesary expenses and you will have enough money without raising the taxes for lower incomes.
You also need to calculate with the dynamic effects. If people get more of what they earn to themselves, most people will work more, thus still paying lots in taxes. I happen to have discussed this subject with the leading department leaders in our ministry of finance, so I know a bit about it (I don't know all the numbers and figures, though)
I know what I say might sound a bit simple, but my English isn't good enough to argue into details.

Try and compare your tax rates with ours.
On an average, our income taxes go from 40% to 63%. Most people in Denmark pay more than 50% in taxes. I think a fixed rate on about 40% sounds pretty good.


Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

Exactly.
I'd rather be taxed less and left up to my own devices to provide for my retirement. If you rely on some other entity, be it the company you work for or the country you live in, to take care of you when you get old, you'd better like the taste of cat food. I'd rather put my money into safe, long term growth investments than have the government take my money and then dole out the small amount they see fit, when they see fit.
If you want to live in a nanny state where the government takes care of everything, then higher taxes are more palatable. I, however, don't trust the government to do anything beyond paving roads and providing military defense...and even that trust is being strained.

Encouraging productivity would be one of the benefits of a federal sales tax over the current income tax. I've gotten plenty of raises over the years that I wished I hadn't, simply because it moved me into a higher tax bracket, and thus really was a cut in pay. With a federal sales tax, I'd have over $6,000 more a year to invest and/or stick back into the economy.

Foeni
01-01-2008, 04:45 PM
As a liberal minded person, I belive the money I earn belong in my own pocket, so I can spend them the way I like. Not that I don't want to help others in need, I do. But I'm perfectly able to help others myself, I don't need the government to give out my money.

hasselbrad
01-01-2008, 05:02 PM
As a liberal minded person, I belive the money I earn belong in my own pocket, so I can spend them the way I like. Not that I don't want to help others in need, I do. But I'm perfectly able to help others myself, I don't need the government to give out my money.

That makes you a Libertarian in the United States.
Liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) have all gone down the path of bigger government, more spending and higher taxes, regardless of what they say. Goldwater was the last Republican who sincerely sought to reduce the size of government. And he's been dead a long time.

Foeni
01-01-2008, 05:46 PM
The most liberal party in Denmark is Venstre (http://www.venstre.dk/index.php?id=4620), of which I am a member. I'm also a member of the party's youth organisation Venstre's Ungdom (Venstre's Youth or Danish Liberal Youth).
But our political system is quite different from the American. We have 7 parties represented in parliament, for instance. If you're interested you can read more about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Denmark).

Katielondon
02-01-2008, 11:56 AM
in UK terms im a Conservative but in the US i would say i fall under Democrat because im sure not Republican.

and lastly im far from un educated and am perfectly capable to conduct myself with the appropiate decorum in life as im sure Leonie is too, but using the word shit on a forum doesnt really leap out and say that your uneducated.

hasselbrad
02-01-2008, 04:07 PM
in UK terms im a Conservative but in the US i would say i fall under Democrat because im sure not Republican.

and lastly im far from un educated and am perfectly capable to conduct myself with the appropiate decorum in life as im sure Leonie is too, but using the word shit on a forum doesnt really leap out and say that your uneducated.

You'd probably be a Libertarian here too. If you want the government to stay out of your pocketbook and your personal life, you are pretty much a Libertarian.

Keira lover
16-01-2008, 12:47 AM
Taxes are simply designed to sustain the government. Low taxes increase revenue by increasing the amount of money that is in the economy. God, it is good to be back.