What was the income tax rate in Hong Kong?
Give Oil Company profits to the people
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I understand that some are in a crisis that they did not create. Say an illness or something like that.
However, the person who skipped school, got addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, got knocked up or knocked up a half-dozen women, etc are only in a crisis of their own creation.
So the question is why should these folks get a discount on their taxes for screwing up?
I say not a flat tax rate, a flat tax. Everyone from 25-70 pays the same dollar amount of taxes each year, $6K, $12K, whatever it is. Everything you make over that is yours. Don't make enough, the IRS is looking for you.
I seriously hope that you are joking about this. For this to work you probably need to pay $50k each citizen, unless you cut the government to almost non-existence.
Dead serious. This flat fee federal tax would be the portion of federal spending on defense, foreign policy and the federal judiciary spread evenly across all adults in the age range.
Everything else, roads, FAA, etc would be paid for exclusively out of excise taxes for those functions. Therefore, if you don't fly or don't buy products shipped by air, you wouldn't be paying for the FAA.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So police will be paid for by local property tax, no more public school, you have to stop every 1/4 mile to pay for a toll, no more fire fighters. Why? People do not like to pay out of pocket, so you get a lean government, little to no public infrastructure, and no investment for the next generation (education, library, police, ambulance, road, etc).
Why not local jurisdictions simply pay for their roads, schools, etc? Why send money to DC, have some of it fall off, get diverted before it's sent back to the district. Federal taxes should be the smaller portion, not the greater portion. States and local governments should be the greater portion, paying for these things.
The is little or no accountability in the large federal system, as congress hides behind having 535 different reps and senators who are spending the money.
Give them far less to spend and return the power to the local government.
There is going to be corruption, I prefer it to be local, not streamlined federal waste, fraud and corruption.
I think voters can watch (if they want) over their local pols much easier than doing something about the group in DC.
So all of these functions you described, in my opinion, are not federal government jobs. Much of the problem we have today is due to the federalization of many day to day functions.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What you get is Mexico, Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, Mongolia, etc. If that's what you really want, you can probably move over there, but I'd imagine most US citizen don't.
If we keep going the way we are going, we'll get China, Cuba or Communist Russia. I have little faith in any sort of centralized planning and socialist policies.
Let local governments provide, not the centralized federal government. Folks can leave states and towns if they disagree with their government far easier than they can leave the nation. So return the power and decision making to the states and let each state determine it's tax policy. That way, we'll see which policies work best.
Additionally, it's tough, if not impossible to create centralized policies that address the needs of individual states.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
If that happen, I for sure will vote no to all military budget, no to all foreign policy, no to prison expense. Since nothing handled by the government, why bother protecting the private enterprises that charges me for everything? Let them hire their own mercenary. For me, I have my Desert Eagle around at all time. Let those "patriots" die for the privately owned everything.
Frankly, defense and foreign policy are 2/3rds of what I think is the constitutional mandate for the Federal Government. I personally think that, as well as the federal judiciary are the ONLY things that the federal government should provide. Everything else you've listed is local, not federal.
But that's merely my opinion, and I hope it's not too political.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You'd be surprised how many college grad, well educated people can't make a decent living now a days. Not because of dropping out of school or knock up a few women (or being knocked up a few times), but because their industries went out of favor and no longer has jobs, their jobs don't provide medical benefit and they went bankrupt due to medical accidents (over 50% of all personal bankruptcy are due to medical reason).
Isn't that just another form of bad decision. Studying art history when software engineers is the field with the most opportunity.
Why is it the government's job to make sure that art historians, following their dreams, have health coverage.
If someone wants to study art history, or some other hypothetical out of favor, or historically low paying, low benefit field of study, I think it's great. They make an informed decision that the field is traditionally low paying, few if any benefits, and that's the risk they take.
If they choose this, then why is it everyone else's job to support them?
I'm for helping the 50% who have a catastrophic event such as a cancer or other unforseeable disease that puts them out of work, etc.
I'm not so keen on providing a net for those who make informed decisions that lead them to poverty.
Remember, I grew up in a single parent home, in that $18K/year house, and watched my mom scratch and claw to eek out a living without the support of two different fathers. I watched others around me who came from similar backgrounds. So I know it CAN be done if one works hard.
I had the choice. I had the opportunity for either a music scholarship or an engineering scholarship. I chose engineering because I believed that was the more secure career field. Music may have have more chance for superstardom, but those opportunities are few and far between. So I chose to study BOTH software engineering and electrical engineering with the scholarship I earned.
Bad things happen to people. However, I think most bad things are nothing more than the consequences of poor decisions.
If we just bail out folks who make bad decisions, they'll just do it again.
So I'm not surprised that well educated folks cant get jobs. Well educated doesn't mean smart or wise. Education is no guarantee of wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, learning from mistakes and sometimes paying the price for mistakes so one doesn't repeat them.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I understand that some are in a crisis that they did not create. Say an illness or something like that.
However, the person who skipped school, got addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, got knocked up or knocked up a half-dozen women, etc are only in a crisis of their own creation.
So the question is why should these folks get a discount on their taxes for screwing up?
I say not a flat tax rate, a flat tax. Everyone from 25-70 pays the same dollar amount of taxes each year, $6K, $12K, whatever it is. Everything you make over that is yours. Don't make enough, the IRS is looking for you.
I seriously hope that you are joking about this. For this to work you probably need to pay $50k each citizen, unless you cut the government to almost non-existence.
Dead serious. This flat fee federal tax would be the portion of federal spending on defense, foreign policy and the federal judiciary spread evenly across all adults in the age range.
Everything else, roads, FAA, etc would be paid for exclusively out of excise taxes for those functions. Therefore, if you don't fly or don't buy products shipped by air, you wouldn't be paying for the FAA.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So police will be paid for by local property tax, no more public school, you have to stop every 1/4 mile to pay for a toll, no more fire fighters. Why? People do not like to pay out of pocket, so you get a lean government, little to no public infrastructure, and no investment for the next generation (education, library, police, ambulance, road, etc).
Why not local jurisdictions simply pay for their roads, schools, etc? Why send money to DC, have some of it fall off, get diverted before it's sent back to the district. Federal taxes should be the smaller portion, not the greater portion. States and local governments should be the greater portion, paying for these things.
The is little or no accountability in the large federal system, as congress hides behind having 535 different reps and senators who are spending the money.
Give them far less to spend and return the power to the local government.
There is going to be corruption, I prefer it to be local, not streamlined federal waste, fraud and corruption.
I think voters can watch (if they want) over their local pols much easier than doing something about the group in DC.
So all of these functions you described, in my opinion, are not federal government jobs. Much of the problem we have today is due to the federalization of many day to day functions.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
What you get is Mexico, Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, Mongolia, etc. If that's what you really want, you can probably move over there, but I'd imagine most US citizen don't.
If we keep going the way we are going, we'll get China, Cuba or Communist Russia. I have little faith in any sort of centralized planning and socialist policies.
Let local governments provide, not the centralized federal government. Folks can leave states and towns if they disagree with their government far easier than they can leave the nation. So return the power and decision making to the states and let each state determine it's tax policy. That way, we'll see which policies work best.
Additionally, it's tough, if not impossible to create centralized policies that address the needs of individual states.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
If that happen, I for sure will vote no to all military budget, no to all foreign policy, no to prison expense. Since nothing handled by the government, why bother protecting the private enterprises that charges me for everything? Let them hire their own mercenary. For me, I have my Desert Eagle around at all time. Let those "patriots" die for the privately owned everything.
Frankly, defense and foreign policy are 2/3rds of what I think is the constitutional mandate for the Federal Government. I personally think that, as well as the federal judiciary are the ONLY things that the federal government should provide. Everything else you've listed is local, not federal.
But that's merely my opinion, and I hope it's not too political.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You'd be surprised how many college grad, well educated people can't make a decent living now a days. Not because of dropping out of school or knock up a few women (or being knocked up a few times), but because their industries went out of favor and no longer has jobs, their jobs don't provide medical benefit and they went bankrupt due to medical accidents (over 50% of all personal bankruptcy are due to medical reason).
Isn't that just another form of bad decision. Studying art history when software engineers is the field with the most opportunity.
Why is it the government's job to make sure that art historians, following their dreams, have health coverage.
If someone wants to study art history, or some other hypothetical out of favor, or historically low paying, low benefit field of study, I think it's great. They make an informed decision that the field is traditionally low paying, few if any benefits, and that's the risk they take.
If they choose this, then why is it everyone else's job to support them?
I'm for helping the 50% who have a catastrophic event such as a cancer or other unforseeable disease that puts them out of work, etc.
I'm not so keen on providing a net for those who make informed decisions that lead them to poverty.
Remember, I grew up in a single parent home, in that $18K/year house, and watched my mom scratch and claw to eek out a living without the support of two different fathers. I watched others around me who came from similar backgrounds. So I know it CAN be done if one works hard.
I had the choice. I had the opportunity for either a music scholarship or an engineering scholarship. I chose engineering because I believed that was the more secure career field. Music may have have more chance for superstardom, but those opportunities are few and far between. So I chose to study BOTH software engineering and electrical engineering with the scholarship I earned.
Bad things happen to people. However, I think most bad things are nothing more than the consequences of poor decisions.
If we just bail out folks who make bad decisions, they'll just do it again.
So I'm not surprised that well educated folks cant get jobs. Well educated doesn't mean smart or wise. Education is no guarantee of wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, learning from mistakes and sometimes paying the price for mistakes so one doesn't repeat them.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I agree, javacoutour. Fiefdoms are much easier to create on the state and local level. Power structures aren't open to as many eyes and regional power cores can wash their hands of untidy aspects that fall within the confines of the arbitrary lines drawn in the terrain that form borders. The feudal system would be more true to form under that structure. Provincial bumpkins causing trouble? ..well let the Sheriff of Rottingham take care of that riffraff. Problem solved
It would also allow states with vital resources that spill over into other states to extract "value added" fees for such things. Rivers, watersheds, power generation ..all these things, and much more could be leveraged against states without them. The assignment of defense contracts could offer new opportunities in "bidding" (and cough-cough-the other stuff) and an ever escalating power core could be like a breeder reactor of opportunity for the fiefdom that plays its cards right.
It makes sense on many levels. It would sorta be like the model that much of the 3rd world operates under where the workforce, out of shear necessity for survival, is highly adaptable and highly mobile ..flocking from one fertile pasture to the next in mass migratory actions.
I see the keen wisdom and potential opportunities in this type of governess model. All that is needed is conscripts ..and the package would be complete.
It would also allow states with vital resources that spill over into other states to extract "value added" fees for such things. Rivers, watersheds, power generation ..all these things, and much more could be leveraged against states without them. The assignment of defense contracts could offer new opportunities in "bidding" (and cough-cough-the other stuff) and an ever escalating power core could be like a breeder reactor of opportunity for the fiefdom that plays its cards right.
It makes sense on many levels. It would sorta be like the model that much of the 3rd world operates under where the workforce, out of shear necessity for survival, is highly adaptable and highly mobile ..flocking from one fertile pasture to the next in mass migratory actions.
I see the keen wisdom and potential opportunities in this type of governess model. All that is needed is conscripts ..and the package would be complete.
What sort of oversight do we have now, when congress is spending based on what 535 individuals decide. I have "control" over 3 of those folks.
If spending decisions are made locally, I have control over a larger percent of those making the decisions.
There is little I can do to impact what goes on in congress. So in reality, that's the fiefdom where there is little oversight. In state and local politics, the voters leverage is much greater. In congress, they can hide behind what the other 534 reps and senators are doing.
I.E. don't blame me, I voted against the bridge to nowhere, but the other folks voted for it. Look at all the money I brought back to the district.
My congressman doesn't write about much of anything other than the money he brings back to the district. The whole thing seems to be about getting our own money back to the district.
I'm just saying if less money was going to DC, there would be far less need to try to bring that money back.
If a local body was taxing too much, or not spending the money wisely, it's far easier for the people to either vote out the bums and/or leave than it is to do this when the spending decisions are made on the federal level.
When I look at what I pay in taxes, the biggest chunk is federal, not state or local.
Why does my money, yes my money, have to go to DC in order to determine where it's best spent? I believe my local officials are more in tune with what is needed with respect to schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.
So why are those decisions made or mandated in DC?
If the local folks are corrupt, then folks will vote them out or leave. Then where will they local corrupt cronies be? Out of power, that's for sure.
I think it's far easier to correct that than it is to correct what's currently going on in DC, which is wealth re-distribution with no accountability. You can't point to one or a handful of congressmen and say they are the issue. It's how all 535 of them choose to spend our taxes.
So let's not give them as much to spend, and let local government make more and more of both the taxing and the spending decisions.
Take away the political cover offered by the current system, and put those who tax and spend closer to those who pay the taxes. DC and the federal government is about as far away from the taxpayer as you can get. Let's have those decisions being made by communities who have to live with the decisions and not with 535 folks most of whom have no connection to the people who live with their decisions. They have connections with a few of those folks. But the majority of folks impacted by an individuals decision are NOT connected or controlled by that house member or senator.
If spending decisions are made locally, I have control over a larger percent of those making the decisions.
There is little I can do to impact what goes on in congress. So in reality, that's the fiefdom where there is little oversight. In state and local politics, the voters leverage is much greater. In congress, they can hide behind what the other 534 reps and senators are doing.
I.E. don't blame me, I voted against the bridge to nowhere, but the other folks voted for it. Look at all the money I brought back to the district.
My congressman doesn't write about much of anything other than the money he brings back to the district. The whole thing seems to be about getting our own money back to the district.
I'm just saying if less money was going to DC, there would be far less need to try to bring that money back.
If a local body was taxing too much, or not spending the money wisely, it's far easier for the people to either vote out the bums and/or leave than it is to do this when the spending decisions are made on the federal level.
When I look at what I pay in taxes, the biggest chunk is federal, not state or local.
Why does my money, yes my money, have to go to DC in order to determine where it's best spent? I believe my local officials are more in tune with what is needed with respect to schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.
So why are those decisions made or mandated in DC?
If the local folks are corrupt, then folks will vote them out or leave. Then where will they local corrupt cronies be? Out of power, that's for sure.
I think it's far easier to correct that than it is to correct what's currently going on in DC, which is wealth re-distribution with no accountability. You can't point to one or a handful of congressmen and say they are the issue. It's how all 535 of them choose to spend our taxes.
So let's not give them as much to spend, and let local government make more and more of both the taxing and the spending decisions.
Take away the political cover offered by the current system, and put those who tax and spend closer to those who pay the taxes. DC and the federal government is about as far away from the taxpayer as you can get. Let's have those decisions being made by communities who have to live with the decisions and not with 535 folks most of whom have no connection to the people who live with their decisions. They have connections with a few of those folks. But the majority of folks impacted by an individuals decision are NOT connected or controlled by that house member or senator.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'll continue any further discussion via PM ..or suggest contacting TnS or GMan for the addy of an alternative venue. I'd surely like to continue this discussion ..but it's already morphed too far.
My apologies for taking this trip. I do have much to say on this topic in alternative point of view. Every evolution has its consequences.
My apologies for taking this trip. I do have much to say on this topic in alternative point of view. Every evolution has its consequences.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
What was the income tax rate in Hong Kong?
17% max from my memory (left there when I was a teenager), free public school till 9th grade (then about US$500 per year afterward), college is probably about US$1000 per year, free medical service (but you have to wait 3 hours in line for doctor.
No federal tax (China took care of that, and before that, UK paid for that since it was a colony), property tax is also about 1%, NO SALES TAX, 100% tax on new car registration, tobacco and alcohol are taxed at 40%.
Seems like a nice place right? Except housing is same price as US, but they are making salary in HK$ (half of US salary), we paid almost as much in public transit (subway, bus aren't cheap) as we did in US for owning a cheap car. It is so crowded that it makes New York looks like a suburb in comparison.
What was the income tax rate in Hong Kong?
17% max from my memory (left there when I was a teenager), free public school till 9th grade (then about US$500 per year afterward), college is probably about US$1000 per year, free medical service (but you have to wait 3 hours in line for doctor.
No federal tax (China took care of that, and before that, UK paid for that since it was a colony), property tax is also about 1%, NO SALES TAX, 100% tax on new car registration, tobacco and alcohol are taxed at 40%.
Seems like a nice place right? Except housing is same price as US, but they are making salary in HK$ (half of US salary), we paid almost as much in public transit (subway, bus aren't cheap) as we did in US for owning a cheap car. It is so crowded that it makes New York looks like a suburb in comparison.
Quote:
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
Well, I do what I can to give value to the customer and move as much product as possible. I don't have employees and I don't make a living at it. However, the owner of the job shop in question sold his product via bid had a revolving door on the shop ..and still managed to live large. .
Now when I did (in the form of subcontractors) I DID give them every benefit that I could from my revenues. They were effectively partners with me taking a minor "cut" for the access. I merely did the lion's share of the work to get the lion's share of the revenue.
There are a couple of versions of success, Tempest. When I was a sales rep for AIM Energy (now defunct), the president of the company WANTED each and every one of the principals involved to get freaking wealthy on bringing the product to market. He was already wealthy and was watching a dream come true. I never made a dime but got the most significant sales calls of anyone in the company outside of the VP of sales. He was a man that rewarded those who served and shared his vision. He enabled and facilitated wherever possible and no call was unimportant.
OTOH, some people regard those under them as inconvenient, but necessary, evils.
It's more about class and character than anything else. There are many classless and lowlife wealthy people. It is the presumption of class and nobility, without any humanity to temper it, that makes them a low life and low class.
Quote:
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
Well, I do what I can to give value to the customer and move as much product as possible. I don't have employees and I don't make a living at it. However, the owner of the job shop in question sold his product via bid had a revolving door on the shop ..and still managed to live large. .
Now when I did (in the form of subcontractors) I DID give them every benefit that I could from my revenues. They were effectively partners with me taking a minor "cut" for the access. I merely did the lion's share of the work to get the lion's share of the revenue.
There are a couple of versions of success, Tempest. When I was a sales rep for AIM Energy (now defunct), the president of the company WANTED each and every one of the principals involved to get freaking wealthy on bringing the product to market. He was already wealthy and was watching a dream come true. I never made a dime but got the most significant sales calls of anyone in the company outside of the VP of sales. He was a man that rewarded those who served and shared his vision. He enabled and facilitated wherever possible and no call was unimportant.
OTOH, some people regard those under them as inconvenient, but necessary, evils.
It's more about class and character than anything else. There are many classless and lowlife wealthy people. It is the presumption of class and nobility, without any humanity to temper it, that makes them a low life and low class.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
Tempest, one thing my professor back in college (communication classes only) always said is that good will brings back good reward.
I don't think there is anything wrong with selling any product at a reduced rate as long as this doesn't also reduce prices for those who can afford. Why do you think there are senior discounts, student discounts, military discounts, kids eat free, etc? Because this increase the revenue without impacting the high margin customers, and generate good publicity at the same time.
Quote:
The owner was constantly whining about foreign competition. Did it devalue his lifestyle? Did he share in the burden of competition? No.
Surly you are willing to sell Amsoil at a reduced rate (at your expense) to those that have been hit by hard economic times...
Tempest, one thing my professor back in college (communication classes only) always said is that good will brings back good reward.
I don't think there is anything wrong with selling any product at a reduced rate as long as this doesn't also reduce prices for those who can afford. Why do you think there are senior discounts, student discounts, military discounts, kids eat free, etc? Because this increase the revenue without impacting the high margin customers, and generate good publicity at the same time.
Quote:
It's more about class and character than anything else. There are many classless and lowlife wealthy people. It is the presumption of class and nobility, without any humanity to temper it, that makes them a low life and low class.
I have never, ever, tied decency and class to wealth. The concepts have nothing to do with one another.
Plenty of good and bad at any wealth level.
There are however plenty of people that believe wealth is evil and needs to be punished for the "greater good".
Quote:
Why do you think there are senior discounts, student discounts, military discounts, kids eat free, etc?
Yes, they are marketing ploys to get certain demographics into your business that otherwise may not. No problem with businesses doing this.
I simply want people to pontificate as they behave.
It's more about class and character than anything else. There are many classless and lowlife wealthy people. It is the presumption of class and nobility, without any humanity to temper it, that makes them a low life and low class.
I have never, ever, tied decency and class to wealth. The concepts have nothing to do with one another.
Plenty of good and bad at any wealth level.
There are however plenty of people that believe wealth is evil and needs to be punished for the "greater good".
Quote:
Why do you think there are senior discounts, student discounts, military discounts, kids eat free, etc?
Yes, they are marketing ploys to get certain demographics into your business that otherwise may not. No problem with businesses doing this.
I simply want people to pontificate as they behave.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
There are however plenty of people that believe wealth is evil and needs to be punished for the "greater good".
No. I don't see that at all. I see that, typically, those of power and influence do everything that they can to enhance and reinforce their positions of power and influence. This tends to also lead to wealth ..and also requires that someone else bear the burden of their manipulated (through power and influence) configured status.
No one minds anyone being wealthy. If it includes taking me to the cleaners to facilitate it, then something is "unright". Remember, there is no mandated creation of wealth in the attaining of wealth. The creation of wealth only occurs when you advance more people toward self actualization than you displace in the attaining. Otherwise, you just figured out how to turn my money into yours. In a captive domestic situation, that appears to how one becomes wealthy ..in contemporary terms that is.
There are however plenty of people that believe wealth is evil and needs to be punished for the "greater good".
No. I don't see that at all. I see that, typically, those of power and influence do everything that they can to enhance and reinforce their positions of power and influence. This tends to also lead to wealth ..and also requires that someone else bear the burden of their manipulated (through power and influence) configured status.
No one minds anyone being wealthy. If it includes taking me to the cleaners to facilitate it, then something is "unright". Remember, there is no mandated creation of wealth in the attaining of wealth. The creation of wealth only occurs when you advance more people toward self actualization than you displace in the attaining. Otherwise, you just figured out how to turn my money into yours. In a captive domestic situation, that appears to how one becomes wealthy ..in contemporary terms that is.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
No one minds anyone being wealthy.
That's a pretty broad blanket statement. One that is nowhere near close to being true. There are many, many people that subscribe to the "Property is Theft" philosophy.
No one minds anyone being wealthy.
That's a pretty broad blanket statement. One that is nowhere near close to being true. There are many, many people that subscribe to the "Property is Theft" philosophy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
No one minds anyone being wealthy.
That's a pretty broad blanket statement. One that is nowhere near close to being true. There are many, many people that subscribe to the "Property is Theft" philosophy.
Well, let me phase that in a different way to communicate the concept.
If I had a company, I wouldn't care how much it cost me in material or human costs to produce a product. I would care more about how much I made in the process.
Invert the view. Most don't mind anyone achieving wealth if they are not in poverty in the midst of that advancement.
As long as the wealthy take care of their pets ..and PAY for their care ..then everyone should be happy
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
No one minds anyone being wealthy.
That's a pretty broad blanket statement. One that is nowhere near close to being true. There are many, many people that subscribe to the "Property is Theft" philosophy.
Well, let me phase that in a different way to communicate the concept.
If I had a company, I wouldn't care how much it cost me in material or human costs to produce a product. I would care more about how much I made in the process.
Invert the view. Most don't mind anyone achieving wealth if they are not in poverty in the midst of that advancement.
As long as the wealthy take care of their pets ..and PAY for their care ..then everyone should be happy
Had a few spare minutes pondering the "deferral" of income and the taxing thereof.
Seen quite a few small business people who pay themselves a pittance (while still living large), and putting the rest into deferral schemes like self managed superannuation...they pay tax, ultimately when they withdraw it but have benefited from the compounding that has taken place.
Chucked a very simple example into a spreadsheet, and it was a bit of an eye opener.
Example Aussie A earning $100k, and paying $27k income tax. Living expenses of $50k (for roundness), with money in the bank at 10%, and tax on interest at 40%....versus exactly the same earner, (lets call him B) with the ability to defer his income by putting it into an investment scheme where tax is paid only on exit. Lives on 50k, which is his present "income", which means he pays per annum $9,600 income tax, leaving $40,400 to defer/invest.
Over 20 years, Bloke A's nest egg has grown to $840k, and he has paid $800k in taxes, progressively over his 20 years. He retires with $840k.
Bloke B's investment has grown to $2,300,000 (exit taxes not paid yet), and he has over the course of the 20 years paid $190k in taxes. When the exit taxes are paid, he's left with $1.6M, and an overall tax burden (most of it deferred) of $870k.
Seen quite a few small business people who pay themselves a pittance (while still living large), and putting the rest into deferral schemes like self managed superannuation...they pay tax, ultimately when they withdraw it but have benefited from the compounding that has taken place.
Chucked a very simple example into a spreadsheet, and it was a bit of an eye opener.
Example Aussie A earning $100k, and paying $27k income tax. Living expenses of $50k (for roundness), with money in the bank at 10%, and tax on interest at 40%....versus exactly the same earner, (lets call him B) with the ability to defer his income by putting it into an investment scheme where tax is paid only on exit. Lives on 50k, which is his present "income", which means he pays per annum $9,600 income tax, leaving $40,400 to defer/invest.
Over 20 years, Bloke A's nest egg has grown to $840k, and he has paid $800k in taxes, progressively over his 20 years. He retires with $840k.
Bloke B's investment has grown to $2,300,000 (exit taxes not paid yet), and he has over the course of the 20 years paid $190k in taxes. When the exit taxes are paid, he's left with $1.6M, and an overall tax burden (most of it deferred) of $870k.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Had a few spare minutes pondering the "deferral" of income and the taxing thereof.
Seen quite a few small business people who pay themselves a pittance (while still living large), and putting the rest into deferral schemes like self managed superannuation...they pay tax, ultimately when they withdraw it but have benefited from the compounding that has taken place.
Chucked a very simple example into a spreadsheet, and it was a bit of an eye opener.
Example Aussie A earning $100k, and paying $27k income tax. Living expenses of $50k (for roundness), with money in the bank at 10%, and tax on interest at 40%....versus exactly the same earner, (lets call him B) with the ability to defer his income by putting it into an investment scheme where tax is paid only on exit. Lives on 50k, which is his present "income", which means he pays per annum $9,600 income tax, leaving $40,400 to defer/invest.
Over 20 years, Bloke A's nest egg has grown to $840k, and he has paid $800k in taxes, progressively over his 20 years. He retires with $840k.
Bloke B's investment has grown to $2,300,000 (exit taxes not paid yet), and he has over the course of the 20 years paid $190k in taxes. When the exit taxes are paid, he's left with $1.6M, and an overall tax burden (most of it deferred) of $870k.
I agree that's how many business owners got the advantage, but consider this:
1) There are risk in B's investment. He could lose it due to a mistake in the business (lawsuit, bad timing, etc) and vola, he lost everything (or a huge chunk of it)
2) In a fair tax system, tax is higher in the higher income bracket and therefore B will pay less tax up front but pay it all back later in one shot when he cash out. Of course, some very rich in this country says everyone should pay the same amount of tax or Use Tax, and therefore fix the problem that way. Or someone suggests a flat tax percentage for all... In the end, if B has enough political influence, he can turn the tax advantage to his side by either legitimate votes or political contribution.
Had a few spare minutes pondering the "deferral" of income and the taxing thereof.
Seen quite a few small business people who pay themselves a pittance (while still living large), and putting the rest into deferral schemes like self managed superannuation...they pay tax, ultimately when they withdraw it but have benefited from the compounding that has taken place.
Chucked a very simple example into a spreadsheet, and it was a bit of an eye opener.
Example Aussie A earning $100k, and paying $27k income tax. Living expenses of $50k (for roundness), with money in the bank at 10%, and tax on interest at 40%....versus exactly the same earner, (lets call him B) with the ability to defer his income by putting it into an investment scheme where tax is paid only on exit. Lives on 50k, which is his present "income", which means he pays per annum $9,600 income tax, leaving $40,400 to defer/invest.
Over 20 years, Bloke A's nest egg has grown to $840k, and he has paid $800k in taxes, progressively over his 20 years. He retires with $840k.
Bloke B's investment has grown to $2,300,000 (exit taxes not paid yet), and he has over the course of the 20 years paid $190k in taxes. When the exit taxes are paid, he's left with $1.6M, and an overall tax burden (most of it deferred) of $870k.
I agree that's how many business owners got the advantage, but consider this:
1) There are risk in B's investment. He could lose it due to a mistake in the business (lawsuit, bad timing, etc) and vola, he lost everything (or a huge chunk of it)
2) In a fair tax system, tax is higher in the higher income bracket and therefore B will pay less tax up front but pay it all back later in one shot when he cash out. Of course, some very rich in this country says everyone should pay the same amount of tax or Use Tax, and therefore fix the problem that way. Or someone suggests a flat tax percentage for all... In the end, if B has enough political influence, he can turn the tax advantage to his side by either legitimate votes or political contribution.
PandaBear, you are correct with the risk thing, but there are less risky options, that sequester quite a bit of the cash behind the scenes.
In the couple of cases that I've had explained to me over a beer or three.
Case A, a small business run by a couple. They paid themselves a taxable pittance, while salary sacrificing the bulk of their wage into their (self managed) superannuation scheme. Their super scheme owned the cars, which the business paid to lease from it (at a tax deduction for the business too). The superannuation owned the building, which the business paid (a tax deductable) rent to. When the business was sold, the new owner decided to continue to rent, and to lease the handover stock, which meant more income into the superannuation. It will be taxed at 15% when withdrawn for retirement purposes.
Being a separate company, the superannuation company isn't part of the line of fire should their business have an issue.
Case two was a small sized specialist engineering company with around 20 employees, working around the country on specialist high pressure boiler and piping applications. Once again, the directors were a married couple, who managed their own superannuation fund. The fund owned the buildings, cars, specialist equipment etc, which was leased to the front company.
All legit, all low tax (for the main business and the super fund), while the rest of our retirement plans are disappearing down the stockmarket.
In the couple of cases that I've had explained to me over a beer or three.
Case A, a small business run by a couple. They paid themselves a taxable pittance, while salary sacrificing the bulk of their wage into their (self managed) superannuation scheme. Their super scheme owned the cars, which the business paid to lease from it (at a tax deduction for the business too). The superannuation owned the building, which the business paid (a tax deductable) rent to. When the business was sold, the new owner decided to continue to rent, and to lease the handover stock, which meant more income into the superannuation. It will be taxed at 15% when withdrawn for retirement purposes.
Being a separate company, the superannuation company isn't part of the line of fire should their business have an issue.
Case two was a small sized specialist engineering company with around 20 employees, working around the country on specialist high pressure boiler and piping applications. Once again, the directors were a married couple, who managed their own superannuation fund. The fund owned the buildings, cars, specialist equipment etc, which was leased to the front company.
All legit, all low tax (for the main business and the super fund), while the rest of our retirement plans are disappearing down the stockmarket.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
All legit, all low tax (for the main business and the super fund), while the rest of our retirement plans are disappearing down the stockmarket.
That's why I always chuckled when there's a push to scrap social security for personal mandated investment. Social Security is backed by notes payable by the government. Mandated investment in the market is guaranteed by nobody. It just lets the government off the hook and removes the costs from the tax system. In a best case the mandated investment would result in massive inflation ...and ..as I'm SURE ..it will just be out there for the picking.
All legit, all low tax (for the main business and the super fund), while the rest of our retirement plans are disappearing down the stockmarket.
That's why I always chuckled when there's a push to scrap social security for personal mandated investment. Social Security is backed by notes payable by the government. Mandated investment in the market is guaranteed by nobody. It just lets the government off the hook and removes the costs from the tax system. In a best case the mandated investment would result in massive inflation ...and ..as I'm SURE ..it will just be out there for the picking.
Quote:
Social Security is backed by notes payable by the government.
Maybe if people have something to lose in the markets rather than the "guaranteed"
SS system, they will pay attention to those markets and the government's actions in them.
SS is a ponzi scheme in every regard and the politicians that set it up and continue to support it will be long gone when it collapses but they are more than happy to reap the political gains today. Truly socialized costs, and personal gains. NO different from the supposed "evil" investors that "caused" the current market problems.
And now these very same people are set to take over the markets since they know better...after they let it happen.
Social Security is backed by notes payable by the government.
Maybe if people have something to lose in the markets rather than the "guaranteed"
SS is a ponzi scheme in every regard and the politicians that set it up and continue to support it will be long gone when it collapses but they are more than happy to reap the political gains today. Truly socialized costs, and personal gains. NO different from the supposed "evil" investors that "caused" the current market problems.
And now these very same people are set to take over the markets since they know better...after they let it happen.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
SS is a ponzi scheme in every regard
So is the market. You can't show me any sustained growth without losses eventually. Now that the majority of everyone's supplementary/investment retirement is in the market (pensions) ..it's going to be a feeding frenzy. It already has been. More "purges" of life equity.
Social Security is no different. The funds that were used, were liberated in "avoided taxes" ...you would be the first to say that the money was better spend NOW in the economy than where it would be eaten up by inflation. So, the SS revenues resulted in lower taxation and the "market" boomed or sank with more resources. Now when the bill comes due for that "investment" ..now it a big anchor.
What's the difference in "planned" results with putting the same money in the market? Won't the money exist in the economy if inserted anywhere else? Sure it will. Now it's got no (false or otherwise) backer. Now you can blame the foolishness of leaving your money in the hands of currupt financiers for your losses.
How do you see such P.T. Barnum notions as good? Now I can see how you can look at it as "opportunity" as you wring your hands at the potential for personal gain...but it by no means has any sensible social sustenance component to it. It can't. The physics of it won't allow it.
SS is a ponzi scheme in every regard
So is the market. You can't show me any sustained growth without losses eventually. Now that the majority of everyone's supplementary/investment retirement is in the market (pensions) ..it's going to be a feeding frenzy. It already has been. More "purges" of life equity.
Social Security is no different. The funds that were used, were liberated in "avoided taxes" ...you would be the first to say that the money was better spend NOW in the economy than where it would be eaten up by inflation. So, the SS revenues resulted in lower taxation and the "market" boomed or sank with more resources. Now when the bill comes due for that "investment" ..now it a big anchor.
What's the difference in "planned" results with putting the same money in the market? Won't the money exist in the economy if inserted anywhere else? Sure it will. Now it's got no (false or otherwise) backer. Now you can blame the foolishness of leaving your money in the hands of currupt financiers for your losses.
How do you see such P.T. Barnum notions as good? Now I can see how you can look at it as "opportunity" as you wring your hands at the potential for personal gain...but it by no means has any sensible social sustenance component to it. It can't. The physics of it won't allow it.
I don't fully understand your post as there is very little concrete information present, but I will attempt a response.
Quote:
You can't show me any sustained growth without losses eventually.
There is up and down as with all things economic. You want and expect a free lunch with a constant up slope? Never happened and never will.
SS is a mandatory tax that must be paid. People can choose to invest, how much and in what with private investments.
Congress determines how much you pay into SS and what you get out of it by edict. That is not the case with investment.
A good portion of the SS money that the vast majority of people believe is going into "their account" actually goes into the general fund to be spent elsewhere. This is a government action of deception that easily rivals any predatory lending or greedy CEOs.
The current problems were caused by faulty government policy.
The coming SS/medicare crisis will make this little event look like chump change.
With an income tax in place, people are not able to "stay out of the game". If people could choose to keep their whole pay check and stick it under the mattress, they could. Tax sheltered 401Ks, set up by the government, have basically forced people into the markets in order to generate some income when they retire.
Quote:
sensible social sustenance component
Please define.
Quote:
You can't show me any sustained growth without losses eventually.
There is up and down as with all things economic. You want and expect a free lunch with a constant up slope? Never happened and never will.
SS is a mandatory tax that must be paid. People can choose to invest, how much and in what with private investments.
Congress determines how much you pay into SS and what you get out of it by edict. That is not the case with investment.
A good portion of the SS money that the vast majority of people believe is going into "their account" actually goes into the general fund to be spent elsewhere. This is a government action of deception that easily rivals any predatory lending or greedy CEOs.
The current problems were caused by faulty government policy.
The coming SS/medicare crisis will make this little event look like chump change.
With an income tax in place, people are not able to "stay out of the game". If people could choose to keep their whole pay check and stick it under the mattress, they could. Tax sheltered 401Ks, set up by the government, have basically forced people into the markets in order to generate some income when they retire.
Quote:
sensible social sustenance component
Please define.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
