Ever notice that the determination of "fair share" is generally typified by "those that make more than me".... You never see anyone piss and moan about this issue unless they stand to benefit financially from it.
That is a great synopsis.
U.S. Distribution of Wealth Now Worse Than Banana Republics
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Ever notice that the determination of "fair share" is generally typified by "those that make more than me".... You never see anyone piss and moan about this issue unless they stand to benefit financially from it.
That is a great synopsis.
That's not true either. In industries that are distinctly monopolistic, it is difficult for an employee with certain specializations to find another job. I'm not saying it's the government's responsibility to find them other jobs, but regulation is of absolute importance to ensure that the business practices of any corporation are just and fair. Sorry, the free market has failed, and it's time for restructuring.
Bitter? No, I'm paid just fine, thank you. I'm just considering the unjust suffering of others to the benefit of those who don't actually earn their keep. But if you want to just unquestionably accept what authority tells you that's your own prerogative - but I won't sit here and behave like a walking zombie. I'm surprised that you're such a zealot for American Thinker, and yet you don't mind getting walked all over.
Last edited:
The idiosyncrasy of CEOs against taxation is laughable. Often most CEOs are rich because their companies own contracts, from which the Government awarded them, to provide welfare and services and this in turn increased their companies' revenue and often resulted in a salary increase for the CEO.
Trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich are bull - because often it just means the rest of us are footing the bill and effectively paying the CEO's salary and we see our lifestyles continuing to diminish.
I know cause I have SEEN this in Scandinavia (yes I have actually been there in person unlike the internet welfare-socialists who live in a Government building) which is supposedly a Welfare-Socialist's wetdream, yet everyone who is 16-25 (unless born into a rich family) can't afford consumer goods and the only people I saw were happy were generally retirees because:
A) Selfish retirees had amassed their savings before a welfare state was introduced (or in the case of having no savings, luckily for them, they had the benefit of less taxation in their youth and a free retirement).
B) Government pays for their housing and medical bills.
Et Al.
Trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich are bull - because often it just means the rest of us are footing the bill and effectively paying the CEO's salary and we see our lifestyles continuing to diminish.
I know cause I have SEEN this in Scandinavia (yes I have actually been there in person unlike the internet welfare-socialists who live in a Government building) which is supposedly a Welfare-Socialist's wetdream, yet everyone who is 16-25 (unless born into a rich family) can't afford consumer goods and the only people I saw were happy were generally retirees because:
A) Selfish retirees had amassed their savings before a welfare state was introduced (or in the case of having no savings, luckily for them, they had the benefit of less taxation in their youth and a free retirement).
B) Government pays for their housing and medical bills.
Et Al.
People lost jobs and that is unfortunate, now those who still have jobs are considered rich or at least well off. Recession/depression is a great fertilizer for sour grapes. There are jobs available, maybe not in ones chosen profession or at a salary one wants. We have to adapt, times have changed. Everybody owes everything to their country.
No, but it sure can help get the economy out of the nose dive it is in. People have to change, unemployment/welfare benefits should only be a bridge for a while, not a career move. Look at the riots going on in merry old England because of college tuition rates going up. I expect something like that to happen here if the economy does not turn around.
Ah yes, the Laffer curve....haven't seen that one trotted out for awhile.
Always good for a Laff.
Lost your job at 55, well pull up your boot straps and get trained to be a computer engineer.....too late, that job has now being done by a grad student in India making a quarter what you did.
Are you sure of your tax rate figures? I don't see how you get 59% out of a marginal rate of 29% at the top end. I usually use Nationmaster as a source as it gives a better overall picture of taxes and a direct comparison with other nations. Total Tax Wedge single worker (most recent) by country
As for Japan, doesn't your point agree with me by pointing out that high tax rates on the highest income earners did not slow Japanese economic expansion?
As for the last comment, I was just making an observation. I was not advocating it except perhaps to imply that government regulation seems to be needed in order to prevent the development of monopolies. In other words in a bit of a paradox it requires government intervention to insure the continual of competition in the market economy.
The problem is not personal revenue - it's expenses. The cost of goods and services is too high, and wages cannot keep up. Again, this goes back to corporations making too much of a profit off of their products, and it's actually hurting the economy.
Those who are taking advantage of welfare as a career move are not the problem because they are actually a minority compared to those who are using the service legitimately. They're a drop in the bucket compared to the harm compared to the price-gouging the conglomerates are doing. Heck, half the reason they are in that precarious situation is because of over-pricing the market.
No, it's the unfair expenses to the "middle" and lower classes due to corporate greed that is actually killing the economy.
Of course. The entire inception of the modern business was meant as a legal entity created by government for specific public functions. It only took corps until 1933 to attempt the first Business Plot for a fascist takeover.
Last edited:
We got used to paying X amount of dollars for a product when salaries were high, now salaries are very low, but cost of products are the same or a little lower. Aside from bringing manufacturing jobs (would be major help) back into the country what can corporations do? Cost of raw materials continues to rise and will go thru the roof if the goverment starts that carbon tax.
When you add in municipal taxes and fees paid to all levels so you can get permits or licenses to access "your rights" it's nasty.
There are a number of things corporations could do to help their employees and the economy. One would be to bring salaries at the executive level more in line with the salaries at the bottom level. I have always been surprised that most corporations don't seem to realize that the people who make their products might actually purchase more of what they make if their salaries were higher. Another is to welcome technical and managerial innovation instead of opposing it. Most large US corporations have still not adopted methods of production used by the Japanese for decades and are run top down with many executives being entirely out of touch with the shop floor. This is not a recipe for success.
Corporations and government also need to work together to develop infrastructure and engage in economic planning. It is very likely that the next large area of economic development in the US and Canada is in green technology, but very few companies are actively researching this area and many, such as the oil companies, are actively opposing it.
Goverment contracts to companies does create jobs, and pretty good ones at that. Goverment stops doing that and their would be a total collapse of the economy.
Going to have to find something pretty big to replace the defense industry, that is why it keeps producing whether the product is used/needed or not. Civilian jobs could never hope to compete with that.
Price control will never push a economy as far and as fast like good old capitalism can.
Going to have to find something pretty big to replace the defense industry, that is why it keeps producing whether the product is used/needed or not. Civilian jobs could never hope to compete with that.
Price control will never push a economy as far and as fast like good old capitalism can.
The 29% is the top federal tax rate. The second figure represets the provincial component.
The original question you posted was a requet for a North American jurisdiction where hey pay 59% (or along these lines). In the end, the provincial income tax rate (at the top end) in Quebec is 24%... These 2 figures ar applied independently to the income of an individual. That said, a person that is making $1 million per year will pay in excess of 50% of their total income towards the federal component (29%) and an additional 24% to the province. Considering that in excess of 9/10ths of that tol income (1 million) is well into the top threshold, their applicable (combined) income tax rate is still over 50%.
I realize that this amount is not = to 59%, however, factor in other taxes like PST, VAT, GST and property taxes, that overall practical rate is into the 60%'s.
In terms of the link you provided, I'm confounded how they came up with 30.2%... My only guess is that it is the federal rate plus some margin or error. To my knowledge, teh least expensive provincial tax rate in Canada is in Alberta at 10%.. Combine that with the fed rate and the top tax (combined) braket in AB is 39%.
The point I was making re: Japan is that when the Japanese gvt increased rates, a significant amount of that expansion occurred outside of Japan; the Yen fled Japan to invest elsewhere.
Your comment is fair, particluarly the point of monopolies and/or oligarchies... However, the catch-22 on that practice is that the middle class corporations like mom & pop shops, or small(ish) local franchises are ought up in these high taxes and makes it difficult tfor them to grow into the next stage.