The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Andrew_Swallow]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
Edit: BTW, do you get a tax reduction for the interest? In Sweden we get to deduct 30% of the interest. [/B]

Tax relief on home loans has been stopped in the UK. This was a hidden tax rise.

[Towelmaster]

Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
Tax relief on home loans has been stopped in the UK. This was a hidden tax rise.

HiDdEn?????

Over here you can deduct all the interest paid from your income, up to a pretty high maximum. They have been trying for years and years to undo this but no political party wants to cease to exist in the Netherlands...

[Andrew_Swallow]

The British Government did it one step at a time.

Since 1944 Income Tax has been deducted directly from peopleÆs pay by their employer.
This was extended to interest on bank etc accounts and dividends from shares.
Most people only filled in a tax return to cover deductions for their children and mortgages (home loans) but it asked a lot of other questions.
Twenty years ago or so tax relief on mortgages was limited to ú30,000 - at a time of high inflation this was not increased soon making the relief small.
Tax relief on children was abolished - this simplified the tax form.
A different way of handling mortgage tax relief was introduced, instead of paying less tax the monthly payment to the bank was reduced. This had no effect on people and made the form easier to fill in.
The Government "discovered" that 90% of the population did not need to fill in a tax form. Now only the self-employed and the rich fill in tax forms. Most people were happy not having to fill in a form.
One year when mortgage rates were falling mortgage tax relief was abolished.

[Dr Maturin]

Andrew...doesn't the UK have the highest income tax rate of any capitalist country in the world?

[Andrew_Swallow]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
Andrew...doesn't the UK have the highest income tax rate of any capitalist country in the world?

Margaret Thatcher soon put a stop to that. The top rate in the UK is 40%. Practically everyone pays some Income Tax and the civil service succeeds in collecting it. It is possible that the total received is the highest or something weird like that.

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a higher rate.

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a higher rate.

In Sweden the maximum income tax is 57%. I think...

/IamS

[Dr Maturin]

<<In Sweden the maximum income tax is 57%. I think...>>

I saw an interview with Michael Moore in which he indicated that he thinks some people should be taxed at that rate in the USA. Yikes.

[rymdgubbe]

Thank god it is not like in the old days when Astrid Lindgren got a tax of 102 procent.
The following information about the swedish tax system is quoated from susning.nu (http://susning.nu/Marginalskatt).
I'll try to translate it to English.
"F÷rst och frõmst finns grundavdraget - ca 11 000 kr f÷r de flesta. PÕ inkomster under det betalar du ingen skatt. F÷r statlig inkomstskatt finns tvÕ brytpunkter, som kallas skiktgrõnser. F÷r inkomstÕret 2003 gõller att den nedre skiktgrõnsen õr 284 300 kr och den ÷vre 430 000 kr. PÕ inkomster ÷ver skiktgrõnserna betalas 20 respektive 25 procents statlig inkomstskatt. Progressionstrappan har alltsÕ fyra steg. Men progressionen blir i pricip stegl÷s eftersom ju st÷rre del av inkomsten som ÷verstiger skiktgrõnsen, desto mer av den totala inkomsten blir skatt. Antag 30% kommunalskatt. DÕ betalar en som tjõnar 300000kr 30% pÕ upp till 284300, 50% pÕ resten. Det blir totalt 31,1%. En som tjõnar 400000 betalar ocksÕ 30% pÕ upp till 284300, 50% pÕ resten, men totala skatten blir 35,8%. "

First you have a base deduction of 11 000 SEK (1200 EUR). For incomes under that you don't pay tax. For state tax there are two breakpoints, the lower one is at 284 300 SEK (31 218 EUR) and upper one 430 000 SEK (47 217 EUR). If you have an income over those breakpoints the state tax is 20 % respectively 25 % of your income.
We assume that you are living in a municipality that has 30% tax (monstly local taxes in Sweden is between 28-33 %). If you are earing under 284 300 SEK in a year then you pay 30 %.
If you earns 300 000 SEK (32 942 EUR), you pay 30 % on the money up to 284300 and 50 % on the rest. So this gives a tax of 31.1 %.
If you earns 400 000 SEK (43 923 EUR), 30 % on money up to 284 300 SEK and rest 50 %. This gives a tax of 35,8 %

Phuu....

/Magnus

[Towelmaster]

What rymdgubbe said also goes for Holland. Maximum taxes are around 53 % I believe. But of course you only pay that over the amount of money you make above the threshold. So in real life people end up with a tax-pressure of around 30%

ZHD : Although I don't agree with that Moore-statement, look at what it would get you:

1. Real social security for the really poor and disabled paid by the rich and comfortable.

2. Education would improve vastly without the government having to butt in with federal and state programs etcetera.

3. Suppose you make 3 million dollars(which is not out of the realm of the possible, right?) of income after deducting expenses, business-cost, etcetera. You would then have to pay around 1.5 million in taxes which means that you will only be left with a measly 1.5 million nett per year. Hardly enough to get by on...


And yeah I know I know: you are now going to say that it would kill the spirit of free enterprise etcetera.

Only; It hasn't so far in the countries were these tax-rates are actually effective. Good businessman always float to the top.

But that may be something for another discussion...(?)

[Dr Maturin]

<<1. Real social security for the really poor and disabled paid by the rich and comfortable.>>

In the US, people get benefits without even putting money into social security. And it already is paid for by the rich. And what is the really poor? If you are disabled or whatever, then there is a reason for being poor. Technically, I was poor in 1998 when I lived alone in California after my parents moved. But I pulled myself out of it. Granted, I am not disabled, but most of the time the only thing disabled is someone's work ethic. My wife has a friend at work who is going to quit because they make him work six days a week. That is probably the best job he'll ever have and he is leaving it. That is commonplace.

<<2. Education would improve vastly without the government having to butt in with federal and state programs etcetera.>>

Education is great in the US, comparatively. I don't think feeding money into the system is the answer. A lot of things need to be done, but regardless, my son will most likely be publicly schooled, but I am going to teach him at home, too. Also, gotta make sure that the fake history they teach isn't something he retains.

<<3. Suppose you make 3 million dollars(which is not out of the realm of the possible, right?) of income after deducting expenses, business-cost, etcetera. You would then have to pay around 1.5 million in taxes which means that you will only be left with a measly 1.5 million nett per year. Hardly enough to get by on...>>

I don't think we should punish success. This is the main thing that separates Americans from others. Even if an American talks about socialism...chances are if they become a millionaire, they will change their mind. I personally would give money willingly if I were a millionaire. But I'd give it to programs that promote teaching people to fish, not to accept the already caught fish, if you get what I mean. I give free advice to people on how to manage their money, especially ones who complain about "living check to check." I helped a guy out at work who later put in his two weeks last week because he is going to school to learn how to make dentures. Big money job. I love seeing success, I love the pursuit of success. I plan on someday being what Teresa Heinz-Kerry describes as "rich white trash."

[Radhil]

I don't think we should punish success. This is the main thing that separates Americans from others. Even if an American talks about socialism...chances are if they become a millionaire, they will change their mind.

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged lately, and I think I get this angle a little better than I have in previous threads. (my head also hurts from the unrelenting hammering of the point - I don't think Rand enjoys subtlety much).

Thing is, I also see TM's first two points. (Point 3 - you're insane man).

Both concepts are important - that of personal gain and that of society's gain. In a good system, one contributes to the other. Just how do you balance it all though...

TM sez Good Businessmen float to the top. That's true. Exactly how far up are they floating for their effort though? Other than Vivendi, and I think DeBeers is out of England, I can't name any major worldly known businesses coming out of Europe. Car manufacturers, and only because they're highly visible. Then there's the flip side - massive businesses over here being looted and dumped by rich stockhounds just looking to get richer.

Balance... where's the balance...

[Capt.Montoya]

Firstly: I don't think taxing the rich is punishing success, it's a way to redistribute wealth that those millionaires don't contribute to society otherwise (not all the rich have such a philanthropic view as Z'h'd D), but I'd be out of my depth if I wanted to discuss that in more detail.

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
<<2. Education would improve vastly without the government having to butt in with federal and state programs etcetera.>>

Education is great in the US, comparatively. I don't think feeding money into the system is the answer. A lot of things need to be done, but regardless, my son will most likely be publicly schooled, but I am going to teach him at home, too. Also, gotta make sure that the fake history they teach isn't something he retains.

That's not what I've read... the USA has consistently become one of the worst performers in international rankings and tests in math and science, in fact even within the US there's a big recognition of this and many programs with the intention of improving math and science teaching in K-12 (kindergarten to 12th grade which would be the end of high school). The USA used to have the highest international ranking on such education in the past.
In graduate education in science and engineering the USA leadership is starting to erode too. Enrollment and applications have decreased, partly due to visa problems after 9/11 for students coming from some countries like China, partly due to increased competition from Europe, Canada, Australia, and even India and China to attract foreign students or retain their citizens in world-class graduate programs.

As for the fake history part... don't forget to teach your children that Texas seceded from MÚxico after an influx of illegal immigrants became rebellious, and they weren't really interested in becoming a country but always had the intention of becoming part of the USA, and that the Mexican war that came after Texas joined the USA was one of aggression with the express intent of conquering new land.

(The way that story is presented in Texas at El Alamo and the San Jacinto monument is soooo different from what I was taught in MÚxico)

But seriously: History is so subject to interpretation that I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere in between the "fake history" taught at public schools and what you think your children should learn.

BTW Radhil: most European car manufacturers are now part of international conglomerates with a strong footing in the USA (Volkswagen might be the only exception). Vivendi isn't doing that well... There are some major chemical companies that are still mostly European in origin and ownership (BASF, BP might be the most familiar names), but those you rarely hear about in the news.

[Dr Maturin]

<<Firstly: I don't think taxing the rich is punishing success, it's a way to redistribute wealth that those millionaires don't contribute to society otherwise (not all the rich have such a philanthropic view as Z'h'd D), but I'd be out of my depth if I wanted to discuss that in more detail.>>

When the government unfairly intrudes upon your wealth, that is against freedom. It should be one's choice to be philanthropic. And it is also someone's choice whether or not they want to contribute to society. You can choose to volunteer in a soup house or you can choose not to. You can choose to join the military or not.

Then there is the whole question of what contributing to society is. What is fifty years it was bearing at least one child.

Redistribution of wealth is a major turnoff for most Americans -- no matter what your opinion of it is -- which is why the DNC will HAVE to go back to the drawing board.

[bakana]

And, it's also totally Immoral for the Wealthy to buy Congress and make Themselves Tax Exempt while making sure that the Poorest segments of society pay 90% of the taxes.

I'd have no problem with a Flat Tax and Zero Deductions.
But the Billionaires Club seems to feel intense Pain at that idea.

Actually, the BCs philosophy seems to be "I stole it Fair And Square and Nobody is taking it away from me."

The whole "Compassionate Conservatism" thing seems to boil down to a spinoff of "Let Them Eat Cake."

[Dr Maturin]

<<And, it's also totally Immoral for the Wealthy to buy Congress and make Themselves Tax Exempt while making sure that the Poorest segments of society pay 90% of the taxes.>>

You and I both know that is utter crap. If you make less than $20,000 a year, you can get away with paying almost nothing if you know how to do it.

And at the end of the day, we all get taxes to death with the seemingly endless forms of tax we pay.