On 08/15/09 18:30, clipka wrote:
> Let's see...
>
> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with
> 8000 quids.
>
> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with
> 15000 quids.

	Is that really how it works where you're at?

	Over here, for example, the first 10,000 will be taxed at 20%. The 25% 
rate only applies for the amounts exceeding, say, 10,000 - not on the 
whole salary.


-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/15/09 17:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 	Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they
> don't
>> want to be the ones left out.
>
> I don't think Rush Limbaugh is afraid he'll be left out.....

	Well, given his shape, I'm not sure he cares on way or another.

-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   On the other hand, how much does he contribute to the country's economy?
> Maybe he *spends* more, while paying less taxes, and thus keeps cash
> circulating and jobs running?
> 
>   If this *one* person would pay a very high percentage in taxes, exactly
> how many people would benefit from that? Would the benefit be large than
> him spending the same money?

Let's see where this leads us...

Assume for starters that we have a single filthy-rich guy owning a 
company and, presently, 100,000 quids, and 1,000 poor workers, who 
pesently hold 100 quids each.

We also have a government that wants to do things, but it needs money to 
do so. Let's say they want 50,000 quids, so they need to take it from 
someone.

Let's be a bit naive.

What would the /rich/ person do with 50,000 quids?

Well, maybe he'll buy a luxury yacht, which happens to costs a freakin' 
25,000 in workers' payment, as well as 25,000 in gain for companies 
involved in production. (Note that material costs are actually included 
in this, as you can't really turn modern money into gold, but instead 
ultimately pay people to get it out of the ground.) That makes an 
average 25 quids for each poor worker, and 25,000 quids for some other 
filthy-rich guy who happens to own all the companies involved in the 
production. Who in turn can buy some luxury goods as well, repeating the 
same thing - until all the 50,000 quids are in the workers' hands (50 
quids each), and the filthy-rich guys own more luxury goods. Fine: The 
poor can buy something to eat.

Or, he may hire an awful lot of people to groom his hair day and night. 
50,000 quids to the poor (50 quids each on average), and a happy 
well-groomed filthy-rich guy. Fine, too: Again, the poor can buy 
something to eat.

Or, he may decide to hire people to produce a new fancy product to make 
life easier; 50,000 in production costs going to the poor (50 quids each 
again), and a new product on the shelves. Fine: The poor can buy 
something to eat. Or that new product (prosperity!).

Seems like it's good to leave the 50,000 quids with the rich guy, right?


Now what would the /poor/ people do with 50,000 quids (that being 50 
quids each)?

A poor person might buy food. From some filthy-rich guy. Fine: The poor 
guy /has/ something to eat now, and the rich guy has 50,000 quids to 
re-invest.

Or a poor person might buy a fancy new good produce by the rich guy. 
Fine, too: The poor guy has some luxury stuff now too (prosperity! [*]), 
and the rich guy again has 50,000 quids to re-invest.

So, it's not bad to leave the 50 x 1,000 quids with the poor guys 
either, right?


Now what would the /government/ do with 50,000 quids?

They might for instance hire people to educate the children and young. 
Fine, too: 50,000 back to the poor people (50 quids each), to buy things 
from the filthy rich. /And/ well-educated young people able to develop 
more sophisticated goods (/more/ prosperity!!)

Or they might contract the filthy-rich guy's company to build roads. 
Fine, too: 50,000 to filthy-rich (who in turn hires the poor people to 
do the actual work). /And/ better roads to simplify producing goods 
(/more/ prosperity!!)

So, maybe it's /best/ to give the 50,000 quids to the government, after 
all - or am I missing something here?

The point here, so far, is that the government is /more/ interested in a 
general /increase/ of prosperity than the rich person is - or the poor 
one, for that matter. Both are only interested in buying a 
(comparatively) luxurious life for themselves.


So, why not give /all/ money to the government?

Erm... sorry, no: The government is /not/ that much interested in buying 
luxury goods for each individual as these individuals are; in other 
words, while the government is probably better at deciding what 
infrastructure to spend money on in order to increase the general 
/ability/ to prosper, the individual people (both poor and rich) are 
much better at using the money in a way that increases the individual's 
/will/ to prosper.


And from whom to take the money?

Say you take it all from the poor, leaving them with only 50 quids each. 
They need that much money, however, to eat and pay their rent, leaving 
them with /nothing/ to invest in luxury goods to reward themselves for 
improving prosperity... besides, what prosperity? They're stagnating.

Then again, say yo take it all from the rich, leaving him with only 
50,000 quids. Now, does /he/ need all this money to eat and pay his rent??


So, what's the morale here:

(1) No matter from whom you take the taxes, they do flow back. Even the 
rich guy (and his company, and his ability to create new jobs) benefits 
from the taxes taken from him, through government contracts.

(2) Taking taxes is important, because there /are/ things that 
capitalism, by itself, will /not/ automatically take care of.

(3) Taking /too/ much from the poor is fatal for an economy, as it kills 
  off the capitalist incentive. If the taxes don't suffice, and the poor 
are rather short on money already, I guess it's safer to put more taxes 
on the rich.

(4) I agree that there is probably a level at which the capitalist 
incentive is effectively killed off for the rich man, too; still, it 
appears to me that level will be much higher as with poor people - not 
only in absolute numbers, but in relative ones as well.


I am not an expert, and may be utterly mistaken for some reason, but 
these are the conclusions I come to when thinking it through.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with
>> 8000 quids.
>>
>> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with
>> 15000 quids.
> 
>     Is that really how it works where you're at?
> 
>     Over here, for example, the first 10,000 will be taxed at 20%. The 
> 25% rate only applies for the amounts exceeding, say, 10,000 - not on 
> the whole salary.

It doesn't really make a difference: The approach you describe can also 
be modelled as a tax rate on the total income gradually increasing as 
the total income increases.

Actually, in Germany some precomputed table is used, which specifies the 
overall tax rate to be paid for a total income between X and Y quids. 
I'm not sure though how these tables are computed in the first place - 
they may be generated based on the approach you describe.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:52:07 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/15/09 17:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 	Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they
>> don't
>>> want to be the ones left out.
>>
>> I don't think Rush Limbaugh is afraid he'll be left out.....
> 
> 	Well, given his shape, I'm not sure he cares on way or another.

LOL

I'm far from a supporter of his show (or his views), but there was a very 
interesting article in the New York Times about him a couple months ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=1

Interesting reading.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:27:36 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I'm far from a supporter of his show (or his views), but there was a
> very interesting article in the New York Times about him a couple months
> ago.

I only looked at the month, not the year - I should've noted that it's 14 
months old, not "a couple months" old.  Whoops; still an interesting 
article.

Post a reply to this message

On 16-8-2009 1:51, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/15/09 18:30, clipka wrote:
>> Let's see...
>>
>> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with
>> 8000 quids.
>>
>> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with
>> 15000 quids.
> 
>     Is that really how it works where you're at?
> 
>     Over here, for example, the first 10,000 will be taxed at 20%. The 
> 25% rate only applies for the amounts exceeding, say, 10,000 - not on 
> the whole salary.

It has to, otherwise it would not be a monotonic.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:30:01 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>I make, say, 10000 quids

To add to your prodigious command of English. 
The plural of quid is quid just like sheep. Say, my sheep is worth a quid and
your 10 sheep are worth 10 quid.
Funny old language :D
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with 
> 8000 quids.

> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with 
> 15000 quids.

> So is there any incentive for me to make more money? Seems to me like 
> there is indeed...

  But if in the neighbor country your 20000 "quids" get taxed bu 20%, you
get to keep 16000.

  But I'm not talking about such low difference. I'm talking about someone
earning eg. 100000 and getting taxed 50%, while in the neighbour country
he would be taxed eg. 20%.

> >   60% in Finland.

> Of the whole income?

  Yes. It's not "for anything exceeding x euros". It's 60% your whole income.

  There are (completely legal and endorsed by the government) ways of
earning such amounts with less taxing through other means, mostly related
to having stocks in companies or something like that, but I know of
individuals who simply have a large salary and who have to pay 60% of it
in tax (eg. the father of a good friend of mine).

  Oh, and the 60% is just your income tax. Then there are some mandatory
insurance payments and a few other mandatory payments which cause you to
actually get less than 40% of your salary.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16-8-2009 12:51, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with 
>> 8000 quids.
> 
>> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with 
>> 15000 quids.
> 
>> So is there any incentive for me to make more money? Seems to me like 
>> there is indeed...
> 
>   But if in the neighbor country your 20000 "quids" get taxed bu 20%, you
> get to keep 16000.
> 
>   But I'm not talking about such low difference. I'm talking about someone
> earning eg. 100000 and getting taxed 50%, while in the neighbour country
> he would be taxed eg. 20%.

Tax is a feedback system. In general in every (western) country the 
person with a median income earns enough to live comfortably. So if the 
tax is higher, the income is higher or the cost of living is lower. 
Hence I assume that either you earn more (before tax) for the same 
amount of work or you don't spend as much on housing as someone in that 
20% neighbouring country.

Post a reply to this message