|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Unscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day. I think Kwark means you pay let's say 0% of income tax if you get up to 1000$ (I have no idea what numbers are correct) then 10% from let's say 1000 to 2000 and so on. Using these numbers if you would earn 1500$ you would pay 10% from 500$ which is 50...?
Nvm, Tadzio explained it.
Anyways
On August 16 2009 20:10 Aegraen wrote:
If not the persons labor is not their fruit, and the person beside you can vote to deny you, your fruit of labor how then can you say that you work for yourself. Should you not then therefore either quit and purposefully seek employment that reduces your tax burden therefore working less, but still getting paid either more or the same by doing a lesser job or less work in general? Is this the incentive we want to instill in society?
What is your point here? It's not worthy paying higher taxes because you will never get anything from it?
I think it's safe to assume poor(er ) people have the biggest number of votes in US.
In this case higher taxes are going to be used for their well being.
Standard of their living gets better, they have bigger chance of coming out of poverty.
They get more money and spend more money.
More stuff is being bought -> more stuff has to be produced/provided -> more people have jobs or just earn more.
At some point in time you may earn more too.
Wouldn't you call that investment?
Now let's assume the case is lost.
You are happy because you can spend more money... but nothing changes at the pace as in example above.
It's just similar to how things are now longer.
Less people leave poverty.
More of them want to get money doing something you wouldn't like to happen especially to you.
Is there a 3rd option?
|
United States43905 Posts
On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Unscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day.
No, you're not getting it. You only pay the 40% tax rate on the $1 above 47,000. You pay the 22% on below that. Jeez. I explained it very clearly. So the post tax difference is +60 cents on the pre tax difference of $1. You're reading the words with a concrete idea of what they mean already in mind and ignoring what they are.
|
United States43905 Posts
On August 16 2009 20:56 Hans-Titan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Inscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day. Oh God.
Actually I'll just go with this. It should be my default whenever engaging with Aegraen. I already use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything. However it seems I'll need to use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything very clearly spelled out to him and will instead read it as what he already believes to be true.
|
United States43905 Posts
Or you could just fail to understand the basic tax system your country uses. Then fail to understand it when I explain it simply to you. Then fail to understand it when Tad agrees with me. Then call me a liar because what I'm saying doesn't add up to what you believe I'm saying and you think I've not noticed this. And at no point stop to actually read what I said. Because there's no way your belief about it could be wrong, if nothing about it adds up it's probably just because I'm lying and hoping you won't notice and not because you are incapable of basic comprehension.
|
On August 16 2009 21:46 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:56 Hans-Titan wrote:On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Inscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day. Oh God. Actually I'll just go with this. It should be my default whenever engaging with Aegraen. I already use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything. However it seems I'll need to use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything very clearly spelled out to him and will instead read it as what he already believes to be true.
In Aegraen's defense I would say most of America wouldn''t initially be able to explain progress taxation and the difference between marginal and average tax rates.
But they probably wouldn't attempt to write a convincing argument against it based on their made up assumptions and then cap it off with some Ayn Rand. That's classic Aegraen
|
On August 16 2009 21:53 floor exercise wrote:
In Aegraen's defense I would say most of America wouldn''t initially be able to explain progress taxation and the difference between marginal and average tax rates.
But they probably wouldn't attempt to write a convincing argument against it based on their made up assumptions and then cap it off with some Ayn Rand. That's classic Aegraen
Funny, I was about to write your second paragraph to you after I read your first, but you made sure to point it out. :D
|
On August 16 2009 21:53 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 21:46 Kwark wrote:On August 16 2009 20:56 Hans-Titan wrote:On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Inscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day. Oh God. Actually I'll just go with this. It should be my default whenever engaging with Aegraen. I already use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything. However it seems I'll need to use the basic assumption that he doesn't understand anything very clearly spelled out to him and will instead read it as what he already believes to be true. In Aegraen's defense I would say most of America wouldn''t initially be able to explain progress taxation and the difference between marginal and average tax rates. But they probably wouldn't attempt to write a convincing argument against it based on their made up assumptions and then cap it off with some Ayn Rand. That's classic Aegraen
Probably true. Still, I love how he claims to have red so many books about government and how it should be run and yet still can't figure out how it is progressive taxation works.
|
United States43905 Posts
You go into this topic believing progressive taxes always create a point where you can get less by earning more and therefore suck. When you see them mentioned you jump to your default belief and when it conflicts with the example clearly given you think that I've made a mistake and you attack it? The depressing thing is that this is exactly what you do with every single topic. You never read the words of the arguments put against you. All you read is the losing side of a debate you've already had in your head with a ridiculous parody of the opposition you believe you face. Rather than actually making any effort to understand the arguments of others you simply project your own fears upon the argument and attribute that to them before arguing against it.
You did it for preventative care, accusing me of advocating forcing it upon people when everything I said was about how it saved money as a subsidised voluntary option. You do it all the fucking time with your fucking founding fathers, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion or not.
You're like a natural disaster of neocon propaganda defeating liberal strawmen which hits topics at random, bearing no relevance to the discussions at hand nor opposing any of the arguments mentioned. Instead you pick a poster at random, attribute them a strawman (from a selection of undermining the republic, hating the founding fathers, wanting tyranny, hating free will, being a communist, not understanding the free market) and then stage a mock duel against your own strawman leaving them baffled by exactly what is going on. You don't debate because you don't engage with anyone else. You're arguing with your own paranoia and when a part of you suddenly notices that nobody has actually voiced the strawman you're defeating you acuse them of lying.
|
LOL at kid who has never done his taxes but pretends to know about it. So typical of the Internet.
|
I feel bad for Aegraen for so many people attacking him at once, but god, that was some funny stuff.
Zzoram totally made me lol.
|
I think it's safe to assume poor(er) people have the biggest number of votes in US.
Isn't it the opposite? I know people with the lowest income usually have the lowest vote turnout. Whether or not they have the biggest number of votes despite their the low turnout I'm not sure though. I always thought the middle class had the most votes. Does anyone know for sure?
|
I don't know the exact numbers, but I think you're right. Voters are the politically active population, and when none of the options represents what you want/need, you don't tend to vote... I suspect this is the case for the poor in most elections. A choice between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with diced celery mixed-in isn't a choice most people would make even when given the option.
|
|
|
I'm only assuming >.< and I guess they would vote if they can get something pretty cheap to even free.
Hmm wait, it wasn't even said how it will be decided... referendum maybe?
|
As much fun as it is to own Aegraen we're so horribly off topic I can barely remember where we started. What does being wrong about taxes have to do with his opinion of the health service anyway?!
It seems most of the foke here at TL agree that a public health option is the way to go. It must be pretty frustrating that quite a simple issue is just getting churned up, overcomplicated and in some cases destroyed in the press.
|
Belgium9950 Posts
On August 16 2009 21:43 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2009 20:50 Aegraen wrote:On August 16 2009 20:21 Kwark wrote:
The way it works over here is you get a tax exemption on the first X, then pay 10% on anything between X and Y, then 22% on anything between Y and Z and 40% on anything over Z. At no point could you possibly save money by quitting or lowering your wage. What do you mean at no point? Here hypothetical numbers for your tax policy. Top end figure for 22% taxation is 47,000$. 47,001$ puts you in the 40% tax bracket. So, if you made, say 50,000$ and paid 40% taxes that means your net income is 30,000$. Now, say you made 43,000$ and you paid 22% taxes. Your net income is ~34,000$. Why would anyone work a job that makes them 47,000 to 60,000? You wouldn't! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to be forthright and admit what your system is and does (Progressive Taxation). Unscrupulous lying is becoming so commonplace. No, no, you won't save money by making less money even though the math says you will. It's even worse in America with higher taxation and with all sorts of other localities, state, property, luxery, etc. taxes. What will happen is you will incentivize people to work less to make more thereby creating a trend in society in which people work less, produce less, reduce and halt progress, and create systemic unemployment due to tax burdens. Ayn Rand put it best in Atlas Shrugged. John Galt will be the order of the day. No, you're not getting it. You only pay the 40% tax rate on the $1 above 47,000. You pay the 22% on below that. Jeez. I explained it very clearly. So the post tax difference is +60 cents on the pre tax difference of $1. You're reading the words with a concrete idea of what they mean already in mind and ignoring what they are.
wow.. I don't know how fucked up your mind has to be to misinterpret that. Even a wellstated fact his mind tries to misinterpret in to his favour.
You blow my mind away, Aegraen. I've never seen someone so clueless, so misguided. I guess you're proof that your educational system needs a big clean up too.
|
lo fucking l tax system is progressive =/= fixed tax rates
In all actuality, the amount of taxes that will pay for any affairs is virtually nil. Instead, most of the money will end up coming from US Treasury bills, loans, and probably Social Security income as well.
To the person that posted about suing anything and winning, have you ever seen a malpractice lawsuit's overreaching capabilities?
From wikipedia, because I'm a lazy shit and lots of other sources are very obviously biased:
Doctors' groups, patients, and insurance companies have criticized medical malpractice litigation as expensive, adversarial, unpredictable, and inefficient. [12] They claim that the cost of medical malpractice litigation in the United States has steadily increased at almost 12 percent annually since 1975.[13] Jury Verdict Research, a database of plaintiff and defense verdicts, says awards in medical liability cases increased 43 percent in 1999, from $700,000 to $1,000,000.
These critics assert that these rate increases are causing doctors to go out of business or move to states with more favorable tort systems.[14] Not everyone agrees, though, that medical malpractice lawsuits are solely causing these rate increases. A 2003 report from the General Accounting Office found multiple reasons for these rate increases, with medical malpractice lawsuits being the primary driver.[15] Despite noting multiple reasons for rate increases, the report goes on to state that the "GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims-which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs-appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run."
And...
About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans...The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."
Yet nowhere in the health bill do we see anything that may have anything to do with tort reform. In fact, many countries, such as Europe and Canada and Japan, nations that have universal healthcare, don't have this level of malpractice liability-in fact, the plaintiff may have to compensate the defense if they lose. On the other hand, the plaintiff in America has very little risk for a very high reward-of course the incentives would encourage people to do this sort of thing. The solution is to reduce the reward and increase the risk-not to a point to prevent people from suing, but to prevent people from shocking people into submission.
I also by no means meant that I'm a vegan temple. Being vegan =/= being healthy, fyi. But there's a difference between someone who lives a lifestyle that is balanced and relatively healthy, i.e. doesn't eat too much steak, eats somewhat balanced (food pyramid fucking lol), doesn't smoke, doesn't spend too much time in the sun tanning, exercises frequently, that sort of thing. I'm not saying I do all of that (steak is delicious) but I still probably do more than a significant number of Americans.
The fact is, here we are relying on Lawyers to tell what Doctors can do. These are the same Lawyers that are refusing to tell themselves what to do. If Lawyers refuse to even let themselves regulate themselves, then why the fuck do we trust them to regulate anything?
|
Healthcare Reform in the US: Hell it's about time.
|
Hahahah Aegraen doesn't even understand progressive taxation. I guess this is what you get for arguing with a birther. Things like facts and logic and fallacies just fly right over their crazy little heads.
|
The medical system in Hong Kong originated from British's Universal Health care System.
In the private sector, I do notice that a lot of doctors who take advantage of the medical insurance to persuade patients to have unnecessary surgeries/medications/tests to sort of "exploit" the insurance system.
I have actually encountered a doctor who had some wrong diagnosis, pretty scary stuff really.
I think the best system (and I think this is what Obama is proposing) is have a mixture between the British/American system. Both private sectors should coexist, people who prefer private service can just get insurance, while the less fortunate ones can still have basic medical service provided free/nomial fee from the government.
To ppl living in UK: How many people go to the private hospitals? I have noticed some like Nuffield Health Hospitals.
edit: lol @ drama btw
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://slackmac.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/facepalm.jpg)
