USA Could Spend Up To $800 Billion Annually On Debt Interest Within Decade!

[Economy 53,076]

Obamacare prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of people and therefore is a success. It indeed makes the US a little bit less libertarian, but that's okay.

Taxing businesses too much will cause them to move their headquarters. But we have to think: do we want a competitive corporate tax? It should be that way, that you pay tax for the country you earn your money.

Raising top income brackets doesn't have a bad effect on businesses. Maybe a few people would move to Switzerland, but overall the income inequality would decrease by a lot and the government income would increase by a little bit. 

Obama is a socialist (I think almost as much as Bernie Sanders) but sadly Democrats in general are right-wing and the Senate has a very small minority for the left-wing of the Democrat party. Republicans are extreme-right, Democrats are somewhere between middle and right.

Raising corporate tax only has an effect on multinationals, by the way. You can also have a progressive corporate tax to create more small and middle-small businesses, which wouldn't hurt the economy while keeping the power of big bussinesses smaller.

i did not say it didnt help people or shouldnt have been done. NOT EVERYTHING has to be about economy. but m,y point was that socialist policies dont necessairily close income gaps. thats the point i was trying to make.

 

I do agree with you that Republicans go too far. I like right winged policies for economy but within reason. Republicans i think sometimes go beyond the fine line. But democrats (especially obama) goes too far left i think

 

And about corporate taxes... what needs to be done is international consensus on a standard... corporate taxes could be higher if every country did it. But right now corporations tend to flock where ever taxes are lower

 

Ever since the US started raising corporate taxes, theyve gotten one inversion after the other. Even Burger King that was such an American icon moved their headquarters here to Canada

 

But it would be next to impossible to have a global agreement on Corporate taxes

[Luc 4,776]

i did not say it didnt help people or shouldnt have been done. NOT EVERYTHING has to be about economy. but m,y point was that socialist policies dont necessairily close income gaps. thats the point i was trying to make.

 

I do agree with you that Republicans go too far. I like right winged policies for economy but within reason. Republicans i think sometimes go beyond the fine line. But democrats (especially obama) goes too far left i think

 

And about corporate taxes... what needs to be done is international consensus on a standard... corporate taxes could be higher if every country did it. But right now corporations tend to flock where ever taxes are lower

 

Ever since the US started raising corporate taxes, theyve gotten one inversion after the other. Even Burger King that was such an American icon moved their headquarters here to Canada

 

But it would be next to impossible to have a global agreement on Corporate taxes

Yeah..

The EU is trying to make their corporate taxes less competitive, and they also want businesses to pay taxes for the country they earn their money in. They also want to limit the deals that multinationals get to pay less taxes (especially Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg give good, secret deals for extremely low corporate taxes for the biggest multinationals). But it's barely possible, because lobbyists have too much power in the EU and the liberals, christian democrats and nationalists don't want it.

 

Taxing the rich does close income gaps though... In a perfect world CEOs would earn max. 20x more than minimum wage, and the dividend on investments would be lower than economic growth...

Right now, too much of the spent money goes right into the pockets of the richest people, who don't push it back into the economy, but instead keep it and enjoy a high dividend (which they also don't push back into the economy!). The dividend needs to be lower to encourage consumption and reduce wealth inequality (global dividend tax), there should be no born richness (high inheritance tax) and income should be distributed better over the whole world, so that nobody lives in relative poverty.

[Economy 53,076]

Yeah..

The EU is trying to make their corporate taxes less competitive, and they also want businesses to pay taxes for the country they earn their money in. They also want to limit the deals that multinationals get to pay less taxes (especially Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg give good, secret deals for extremely low corporate taxes for the biggest multinationals). But it's barely possible, because lobbyists have too much power in the EU and the liberals, christian democrats and nationalists don't want it.

 

Taxing the rich does close income gaps though... In a perfect world CEOs would earn max. 20x more than minimum wage, and the dividend on investments would be lower than economic growth...

Right now, too much of the spent money goes right into the pockets of the richest people, who don't push it back into the economy, but instead keep it and enjoy a high dividend (which they also don't push back into the economy!). The dividend needs to be lower to encourage consumption and reduce wealth inequality (global dividend tax), there should be no born richness (high inheritance tax) and income should be distributed better over the whole world, so that nobody lives in relative poverty.

i still dont get your point. helps inequality how???

 

Your talking about wealth distribution. Im talking about income inequality...

 

Taxing the rich to give me free services or a tax credit in check does not raise my pay and thats what im trying to get at.

 

Socialism does not encourage business investment or job creation, as such peoples ability to get good jobs or to have more bargannig power for higher wages is diminished...

 

As a result, they end up depending on the wealth distribution because under that system, incomes are never enough, the average person never has enough income to make a living for themselves.

 

Just about every socialist country i can think of with the exeption of scandinavia has terrible income inequality. Socialism did not solve the problem in most cases, its only made people more dependant on tax credits payed for by taxes on rich because unemployment is too high and wages too low

 

While i dont think capitalism to an extreme is good, outright socialism unless pulled off perfectly which is hard (especially in larger countries) ends up creating a system in which people cannot earn a living for themselves and be the most productive they can be, and then the system chronically depends on taxing the rich like crazy to try and maintain a standarnd of living for the average person because they cant do it themselves

[Luc 4,776]

i still dont get your point. helps inequality how???

 

Your talking about wealth distribution. Im talking about income inequality...

 

Taxing the rich to give me free services or a tax credit in check does not raise my pay and thats what im trying to get at.

 

Socialism does not encourage business investment or job creation, as such peoples ability to get good jobs or to have more bargannig power for higher wages is diminished...

 

As a result, they end up depending on the wealth distribution because under that system, incomes are never enough, the average person never has enough income to make a living for themselves.

 

Just about every socialist country i can think of with the exeption of scandinavia has terrible income inequality. Socialism did not solve the problem in most cases, its only made people more dependant on tax credits payed for by taxes on rich because unemployment is too high and wages too low

 

While i dont think capitalism to an extreme is good, outright socialism unless pulled off perfectly which is hard (especially in larger countries) ends up creating a system in which people cannot earn a living for themselves and be the most productive they can be, and then the system chronically depends on taxing the rich like crazy to try and maintain a standarnd of living for the average person because they cant do it themselves

Socialism does encourage job creation. For example in small businesses and the public sector. It also increases consumption, which is good for the economy and creates jobs.

Higher taxes for the rich allows for lower taxes for the poor, and a bigger public sector.

A perfect distribution would, imo, be:

[SPOILER]

Income tax:

€0~15000: 15%

€15000~50000: 35%

€50000~100000: 50%

€100000+: 80%

Consumption tax: 20% for everything besides what the government wishes to encourage and food (so electric cars, solar pannels, healthy food, etc. is 5% or even lower)

Corporate tax:

€0~100.000: 10%

€100.000-2.000.000: 20%

€2.000.000+: 30%

Dividend is included in income tax.

Fines are income-dependent.

75% inheritance tax above €100.000

Environmental and health taxes:

- Cigarette consumption discouraged with extra tax (10€ per pack - municipalities near the border are excluded from this)

- Alcohol consumption discouraged with extra tax (should at least be 30€ for a bottle of wodka)

- Weed consumption discouraged (1g -> €12)

- petroleum consumption discouraged with a fixed price of €2/litre

- progressive tax on water, electricity and gas consumption, to discourage excessive consumption.

- environmental taxes: kilometre-tax for cars, coal tax

With all of that you could pay free education for all (5% of GDP), partially free healthcare (~10% of GDP - expensive medicines unavailable and euthanasia strongly encouraged), a basic income of €250 (8% of GDP), pension of €600 (5% of GDP), other social security (3% of GDP) extra government-paid projects for green energy (2% of GDP) and a big public sector (10% of GDP: this includes police, defense, military, tax-checkers, street cleaners, cleaners, social labour for the unfortunate, structural help for poor countries) and a small government (2% of GDP). In the end government spending should be about 50% of GDP: a big social security, good healthcare, free education, international obligations (2% defense, 0.7% structural help for poor countries, possible 1% for asylum seekers), a big public sector and encouragement of green energy.

[/SPOILER]

[Economy 53,076]

Socialism does encourage job creation. For example in small businesses and the public sector. It also increases consumption, which is good for the economy and creates jobs.

Higher taxes for the rich allows for lower taxes for the poor, and a bigger public sector.

A perfect distribution would, imo, be:

[SPOILER]

Income tax:

€0~15000: 15%

€15000~50000: 35%

€50000~100000: 50%

€100000+: 80%

Consumption tax: 20% for everything besides what the government wishes to encourage and food (so electric cars, solar pannels, healthy food, etc. is 5% or even lower)

Corporate tax:

€0~100.000: 10%

€100.000-2.000.000: 20%

€2.000.000+: 30%

Dividend is included in income tax.

Fines are income-dependent.

75% inheritance tax above €100.000

Environmental and health taxes:

- Cigarette consumption discouraged with extra tax (10€ per pack - municipalities near the border are excluded from this)

- Alcohol consumption discouraged with extra tax (should at least be 30€ for a bottle of wodka)

- Weed consumption discouraged (1g -> €12)

- petroleum consumption discouraged with a fixed price of €2/litre

- progressive tax on water, electricity and gas consumption, to discourage excessive consumption.

- environmental taxes: kilometre-tax for cars, coal tax

With all of that you could pay free education for all (5% of GDP), partially free healthcare (~10% of GDP - expensive medicines unavailable and euthanasia strongly encouraged), a basic income of €250 (8% of GDP), pension of €600 (5% of GDP), extra government-paid projects for green energy (2% of GDP) and a big public sector (10% of GDP: this includes police, defense, military, tax-checkers, street cleaners, cleaners, social labour for the unfortunate).

[/SPOILER]

depends... if u dont spend a lot of unecessairy money then very high taxes on rich arent necessairy to make taxes low on poor

 

your rates are rediculous... if i had to pay 80% taxes on income over 100,000 like... screw bothering to become a doctor or taking risks to start a business etc

 

why waste so many years in school and then my disposable income ends up being almost the same as someone working in fast food? people wont have motivation like that. those taxes are way too high.

 

i do support a progressive tax rate as in taxing the rich a bit more than the poor. but not to the extent you suggested here...

 

Also, i do agree with alcohol and tabacco taxes. actually here in Ontario they both cost a fortune and its a way for Government to get revenue while discouraging bad habbits

 

tax per kilometer driven... i dont know... if you already tax gasoline, theres no point on taxing a kilometer... because... think about it... cars that consume less are rewarded by opaying less for fuel...

 

a tax per kilometer would end up charging cars that pollute a lot and cars that pollute less the same amount so how would it help???? just raise taxes on fuel if u wanna discourage too much driving

 

 

[Luc 4,776]

depends... if u dont spend a lot of unecessairy money then very high taxes on rich arent necessairy to make taxes low on poor

 

your rates are rediculous... if i had to pay 80% taxes on income over 100,000 like... screw bothering to become a doctor or taking risks to start a business etc

 

why waste so many years in school and then my disposable income ends up being almost the same as someone working in fast food? people wont have motivation like that. those taxes are way too high.

 

i do support a progressive tax rate as in taxing the rich a bit more than the poor. but not to the extent you suggested here...

 

Also, i do agree with alcohol and tabacco taxes. actually here in Ontario they both cost a fortune and its a way for Government to get revenue while discouraging bad habbits

 

tax per kilometer driven... i dont know... if you already tax gasoline, theres no point on taxing a kilometer... because... think about it... cars that consume less are rewarded by opaying less for fuel...

 

a tax per kilometer would end up charging cars that pollute a lot and cars that pollute less the same amount so how would it help???? just raise taxes on fuel if u wanna discourage too much driving

 

 

Fast food restaurant:

10 euro per hour (minimum wage) -> (full time job) 20800€ per year -> 16052 euro per year. Basic income (3000 euro per year) added, so 19052€ per year.

doctor: 100.000€ per year -> 60500 netto. With basic income that's 63500. So you'll earn 3x more as a doctor than in a fast food restaurant.. which is quite a good distribution imo. 60000 a year is more than enough to live from.

As for the kilometer tax, people are more likely to go to a different country if it means that they'll pay lower taxes there, and if they do that, they'll also do the rest of their shopping there... That's why you need to find different ways for taxing cars. You could also give a higher tax from 5-7 PM, but a low one for 1-6 AM.

[Economy 53,076]

Fast food restaurant:

10 euro per hour (minimum wage) -> (full time job) 20800€ per year -> 16052 euro per year. Basic income (3000 euro per year) added, so 19052€ per year.

doctor: 100.000€ per year -> 60500 netto. With basic income that's 63500. So you'll earn 3x more as a doctor than in a fast food restaurant.. which is quite a good distribution imo. 60000 a year is more than enough to live from.

As for the kilometer tax, people are more likely to go to a different country if it means that they'll pay lower taxes there, and if they do that, they'll also do the rest of their shopping there... That's why you need to find different ways for taxing cars. You could also give a higher tax from 5-7 PM, but a low one for 1-6 AM.

yeah but a killometer tax.... i can see that backfiring in all kinds of ways

 

and still... 80%??? any income over that much is gonna be almost all tax. Even the country with the highest income tax rate on top income bracket does not have it that high. ur gonna punish ppl for being successful

 

also ur tax rates on the poor are too high... Here in Canada with our high minimum wages (im not against a decent minimum wage if its within reason) our rates are much lower than that and poor people still struggle

 

Here taxes are:

 

15% on the first $44,701 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401), +
26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586), +
29% of taxable income over $138,586.

 

u can reduce the size of the numbers a bit to compensate for currency differences

 

even so, our highest tax rate is under the 35% you suggest for someone making only over 15,000 a year. ur barely making anything and u already want them to pay more than 1/3 in taxes????

[Luc 4,776]

yeah but a killometer tax.... i can see that backfiring in all kinds of ways

 

and still... 80%??? any income over that much is gonna be almost all tax. Even the country with the highest income tax rate on top income bracket does not have it that high. ur gonna punish ppl for being successful

 

also ur tax rates on the poor are too high... Here in Canada with our high minimum wages (im not against a decent minimum wage if its within reason) our rates are much lower than that and poor people still struggle

 

Here taxes are:

 

15% on the first $44,701 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401), +
26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586), +
29% of taxable income over $138,586.

 

u can reduce the size of the numbers a bit to compensate for currency differences

 

even so, our highest tax rate is under the 35% you suggest for someone making only over 15,000 a year. ur barely making anything and u already want them to pay more than 1/3 in taxes????

In my country it's:

0-19822: 36.50%

19822-57585 (will be increased to 65000 next year): 42% (will be lowered to 40% next year)

57585+: 52%

15% is already a low tax rate. You have to pay everything in the end   

80% is indeed a high tax rate, but it doesn't negatively affect the economy. The time when income taxes were the highest was the time with the most economic growth, and many countries have had taxes for the rich of over 90%.

[Economy 53,076]

In my country it's:

0-19822: 36.50%

19822-57585 (will be increased to 65000 next year): 42% (will be lowered to 40% next year)

57585+: 52%

15% is already a low tax rate. You have to pay everything in the end   

80% is indeed a high tax rate, but it doesn't negatively affect the economy. The time when income taxes were the highest was the time with the most economic growth, and many countries have had taxes for the rich of over 90%.

those were completely different times tho

 

#1 way less globalization so it was harder to just move ur business overseas. Generally ud have to move wherever your business was and doing business on a globabl scale was more difficult. So in those days it was harder to just move ur business to a lower tax country.

 

#2 those times were different in which u had to make a living. Few Countries had major benefits such as disability or welfare. The ones that did had tougher rules on who got them and who didnt. There was also no tax credit checks... They used a lot more money for war and infrastructure

 

So high taxes or not, it was harder to just leave and u still had to work hard to make a living. There also was very little middle class in many nations. Was the rich 2% and was everyone else. Now its easier to survive on low incomes making laziness in terms of taking risk or starting up a business less appealing

 

I do think higher corporate taxes can work if within reason... But as i said, ull need international consensus and goobal standards cause as of now, corporations move where rates are lower

 

Switzerland and Ireland have so many moving in all the time. Here in Canada we have office buildings popping up all over toronto from corporations moving in, many of them from the United States cause our Corporate taxes are 15% (roughly 25% adding Province taxes) and the US has it at 35% (roughly 40% to 45% adding state taxes)

[Luc 4,776]

those were completely different times tho

 

#1 way less globalization so it was harder to just move ur business overseas. Generally ud have to move wherever your business was and doing business on a globabl scale was more difficult. So in those days it was harder to just move ur business to a lower tax country.

 

#2 those times were different in which u had to make a living. Few Countries had major benefits such as disability or welfare. The ones that did had tougher rules on who got them and who didnt. There was also no tax credit checks... They used a lot more money for war and infrastructure

 

So high taxes or not, it was harder to just leave and u still had to work hard to make a living. There also was very little middle class in many nations. Was the rich 2% and was everyone else. Now its easier to survive on low incomes making laziness in terms of taking risk or starting up a business less appealing

 

I do think higher corporate taxes can work if within reason... But as i said, ull need international consensus and goobal standards cause as of now, corporations move where rates are lower

 

Switzerland and Ireland have so many moving in all the time. Here in Canada we have office buildings popping up all over toronto from corporations moving in, many of them from the United States cause our Corporate taxes are 15% (roughly 25% adding Province taxes) and the US has it at 35% (roughly 40% to 45% adding state taxes)

I disagree with you saying the poor have become lazier. A consequence of globalisation and mechanisation is that it's hard to keep the unskiled jobs competitive, and you need lower wages and less job security to keep unemployment low. The left wing in Europe also is becoming more and more right-winged, and many left-wing voters have gone to far-right populist parties too. All of this added up makes Europe less and less social, while the international participation society is the society of the future, not the nationalist law and order society.

I don't think high taxes on the rich would hurt the economy. Especially not on wealth and heritage. But if we tax corporations, wealth and heritage as I proposed, we need a better global system to accompany with as many countries as possible participating, and other countries sanctioned (like Switzerland).

[Economy 53,076]

I disagree with you saying the poor have become lazier. A consequence of globalisation and mechanisation is that it's hard to keep the unskiled jobs competitive, and you need lower wages and less job security to keep unemployment low. The left wing in Europe also is becoming more and more right-winged, and many left-wing voters have gone to far-right populist parties too. All of this added up makes Europe less and less social, while the international participation society is the society of the future, not the nationalist law and order society.

I don't think high taxes on the rich would hurt the economy. Especially not on wealth and heritage. But if we tax corporations, wealth and heritage as I proposed, we need a better global system to accompany with as many countries as possible participating, and other countries sanctioned (like Switzerland).

i dont mean lazier in the sense that they dont wanna work... i meant lazier in the sense that they wont have as much of an urgency to try to make it in something big

 

starting a business, or taking a difficult degree requires risk and hard work. If people are gonna be taxed dry when they make high incomes, and given so much when they have low incomes... u might as well just stiock to a regular job... you get way less innovation and entrepreneurship that way

 

However im not against higher minimum wages and higher corporate taxes (again as long as they are within reason)

 

but that needs a global consesus and co-operation. As of now Countries compete for businesses with low taxes and low labor costs... so businesses simply move there. OR at least many of them do

 

The way it works right now, if u want your country to succeed, you end up having to lower your taxes to attract job creators... so u need to change the system first globaly

 

until u do that, the only way u can have a decent economy while having high taxes is if ur extremely competitive in other ways (such as productivity, education and infrastructure). Scandinavia and other parts of northern europe are only socialist places i can think of that managed to be competitive in other areas enough to pull socialism off. Socialism also requires very smart and competent governments that know how to use the resources given to them

 

[Luc 4,776]

i dont mean lazier in the sense that they dont wanna work... i meant lazier in the sense that they wont have as much of an urgency to try to make it in something big

 

starting a business, or taking a difficult degree requires risk and hard work. If people are gonna be taxed dry when they make high incomes, and given so much when they have low incomes... u might as well just stiock to a regular job... you get way less innovation and entrepreneurship that way

 

However im not against higher minimum wages and higher corporate taxes (again as long as they are within reason)

 

but that needs a global consesus and co-operation. As of now Countries compete for businesses with low taxes and low labor costs... so businesses simply move there. OR at least many of them do

 

The way it works right now, if u want your country to succeed, you end up having to lower your taxes to attract job creators... so u need to change the system first globaly

 

until u do that, the only way u can have a decent economy while having high taxes is if ur extremely competitive in other ways (such as productivity, education and infrastructure). Scandinavia and other parts of northern europe are only socialist places i can think of that managed to be competitive in other areas enough to pull socialism off. Socialism also requires very smart and competent governments that know how to use the resources given to them

 

I disagree with you saying it stops entrepeneurship and innovation. Again, the periods of the most innovation and economic growth were those with the highest taxes. Most people are content with 100000 euros, and earning a million still means you earn about 4x as much as people who earn 100k.

What really makes innovation, hard work, consumption and economic growth is the fact that you can earn money from your parents when they die. Imagine you're a 20 year old - what motivation do you have to work hard, knowing that you'll get 3 million in about 10 years? It could be distributed over the whole population for a fair system that encourages economic activity. Just like how power shouldn't be heritageable (monarchy), should money not be heritageable.

It's also ridiculous how so much of the earnings of a company go to dividend, while they could way better spend it on higher wages. And the government doesn't tax dividend and interest enough - if you have 3 million dollars and a fictive dividend of 6% (which is, by the way, 4% higher than the 'perfect' inflation and also way higher than the economic growth), you'll earn 180000 a year - so much money you get, only for having money and doing absolutely nothing!

Sas thing is that if yiu higher wealth taxes and heritage taxes, people simply move to Switzerland or put it on a bank in Switzerland. That's why I think there should be a global wealth tax and a global heritage tax, that should then be redistributed over the whole population (or invested in education, healthcare, etc.)

[Economy 53,076]

I disagree with you saying it stops entrepeneurship and innovation. Again, the periods of the most innovation and economic growth were those with the highest taxes. Most people are content with 100000 euros, and earning a million still means you earn about 4x as much as people who earn 100k.

What really makes innovation, hard work, consumption and economic growth is the fact that you can earn money from your parents when they die. Imagine you're a 20 year old - what motivation do you have to work hard, knowing that you'll get 3 million in about 10 years? It could be distributed over the whole population for a fair system that encourages economic activity. Just like how power shouldn't be heritageable (monarchy), should money not be heritageable.

It's also ridiculous how so much of the earnings of a company go to dividend, while they could way better spend it on higher wages. And the government doesn't tax dividend and interest enough - if you have 3 million dollars and a fictive dividend of 6% (which is, by the way, 4% higher than the 'perfect' inflation and also way higher than the economic growth), you'll earn 180000 a year - so much money you get, only for having money and doing absolutely nothing!

Sas thing is that if yiu higher wealth taxes and heritage taxes, people simply move to Switzerland or put it on a bank in Switzerland. That's why I think there should be a global wealth tax and a global heritage tax, that should then be redistributed over the whole population (or invested in education, healthcare, etc.)

its like you totally ignored what i said about those being different times

[Luc 4,776]

its like you totally ignored what i said about those being different times

Hm. Indeed globalisation has happened, but it still does not necessarily hurt growth. A business isn't going to move due to a high high income bracket. Startups aren't going to be stopped by it. People will still be motivated to work.

 

But back on topic, I think it's necessary for European countries to cut down on the deficit. Europe could come in the same situation as Japan, so there needs to be a surplus as soon as possible imo, now the crisis is over.

I fear that there's a limit to economic growth, which will be reached when we use everything the earth has. That's why I believe that we should make the population growth, especially in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, way lower. Western governments should distribute free (good) condoms and help give education to women.

[Economy 53,076]

Hm. Indeed globalisation has happened, but it still does not necessarily hurt growth. A business isn't going to move due to a high high income bracket. Startups aren't going to be stopped by it. People will still be motivated to work.

 

But back on topic, I think it's necessary for European countries to cut down on the deficit. Europe could come in the same situation as Japan, so there needs to be a surplus as soon as possible imo, now the crisis is over.

I fear that there's a limit to economic growth, which will be reached when we use everything the earth has. That's why I believe that we should make the population growth, especially in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa, way lower. Western governments should distribute free (good) condoms and help give education to women.

not necessairy. Birth rates keep falling WW now at 2.5 children per woman (just above the 2.1 replacement rate) and by most a--lysis population will peak at 9 billion around 2050 then enter terminal decline