I've Had Enough!

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by ArtM

As stated in a prior post, there are Makers and Takers. "Population Happiness" means that life is good for the takers, who far outnumber the makers.

The "Makers" are frustrated as that their efforts are going to waste as they discover that the faster they dig, the deeper they get in the hole. Eventually, they reach a point that they simply cannot dig or are not willing to dig any more.

30 years of life experience provides this retrospect. Look into the personal finances of anyone you know 45 or older and living in an industrialized nation. It is not by coincidence that all of them, with extreme rare exception, have little or nothing to show for 25 years or more of labor and savings. It is by design.

For the US, about 15% of senior citizens are considered poor. As depressing as that may be, it does not make them the vast majority. As stated previously, only about 10% of SS recipients live solely on their SS benefits, so the other 90% must have something to show for their time in the labor force.

Despite your dire warnings, Sweden consistently places high in worker productivity, economic stability...the main drawback to the place seems to be extremely long, cold nights. What criteria do you propose for evaluating a system?

[FeBR]

Dear Bill, (sorry my poor english)

What are you complaining about? don't talk nonsense, because when you think it can't get worse, you know you can do.

You talk such a lot of **** because you don't know my country (Brazil).
Here is what has been the world's most expensive taxes. Here the minimum tax that is paid on any product is 35%, the average is 60%.
A RedLabel bottle costs $60.
Here to import a boat you pay at least 150% tax. and you can only import new boats.
Everything in relation to nautica stuff here is a minimum double the price from anywhere.
For you to have an idea: a 2001 basic Lagoon 380 here costs 400k

I've Had Enough! you don't yet.
I'm going to the U.S. EU to buy the cat and circunavigate because I will not pay 200k for the government, with the money I live almost 3 years sailing.

When you think you will spend living in another country? I think you will always be better in their country.

Taxes will always increase and corrupt politicians will always exist.

best regards,

[hoppy]

The grass is always greener......

[ArtM]

The ability to achieve and sustain financial independence through conventional financial preparation, not through aberrative processes like the IPO or the leveraged buyout, and certainly not Social Security sustenance.

This is possible to achieve in the countries in the U.S., but only if you have the ability to see the "tricks" of the system before they hit you, and the willpower to hold through many years of careful financial management.

Trying to achieve financial independence in this environment is like trying to sail to a destination through a hurricane. It's possible, but unlikely that you will reach your intended destination. Again, this is a matter of design, not of coincidence, in a world where GDP rules above all other measures of a nation's success.

Imagine a 100% taxation rate on purchases. If every purchase you made were taxed at 100%. You have to earn $2000 to buy a $1000 television, $200,000 to buy a $100,000 home, $6000 to go on a $3000 cruise.

That is the modern AU or US world. We are being taxed at 100%, yet we are not aware of it because of the way taxation is expressed. The government taxes income, not purchases, because that way the taxation is only 45%. As previously mentioned, however, purchases are also taxed, driving the effective tax on purchases to 110%.

A $200,000 home (or sailboat) costs a medium-high income earner nearly $400,000 due to taxation (this is not taking into account borrowing costs). A low or medium-low income earner is taxed at a much lower rate. You and I don't pay the same price for the same product, simply because one of us earns a higher income than the other.

As a result, people in the medium to upper income ranges longer want to do it. They prefer to fall back to a median income range which is easier, more relaxing, and cheaper in terms of taxation. They have realized that they are not getting further ahead by working harder because the system is rigged to prevent or severely inhibit it. In the end, their social security check is going to be the same, so why take on a higher lifestyle today that will simply be unaffordable later?

THAT is the danger of this system. High earning individuals don't want to continue working hard but not getting ahead, don't want to pay double for goods and services, and would rather just consign themselves to the role of the socialist proletariat today than continue to struggle unsuccessfully to reach the bourgeois class, where GDP is actually produced. We're facing a future of no bourgeois, and I don't want to be landlocked inside any nation's borders when that happens.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by ArtM

As stated in a prior post, there are Makers and Takers. "Population Happiness" means that life is good for the takers, who far outnumber the makers.

The key to happiness is finding enjoyment in working & serving others. Thats why we find so many cruisers who are both helpful and happy. (Takers and wannaby takers are a grumpy lot.)

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by ArtM

THAT is the danger of this system. High earning individuals don't want to continue working hard but not getting ahead, don't want to pay double for goods and services, and would rather just consign themselves to the role of the socialist proletariat today than continue to struggle unsuccessfully to reach the bourgeois class, where GDP is actually produced. We're facing a future of no bourgeois, and I don't want to be landlocked inside any nation's borders when that happens.

Overlooking your made up numbers, do you have any references for where this is happening consistently?

That is because it is not happening. No one quits their $500k job because they are paying too much in taxes.

No one quits their $50k job to go on welfare.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Greenhand

Overlooking your made up numbers, do you have any references for where this is happening consistently?

That is because it is not happening. No one quits their $500k job because they are paying too much in taxes.

No one quits their $50k job to go on welfare.

My numbers might be rounded up slightly but are certainly not made up. Most of this comes from Wikipedia's articles, which are based on United Nations projections and statistics, and from the US tax code, which may be found at Internal Revenue Service. I've read enough of other countries' tax codes to get the clear idea that the industrialized nations are all moving in the same direction.

And people are giving up higher paying jobs in favor of lower paying, less demanding jobs. This is happening consistently in Cuba, where more demanding jobs LITERALLY pay the same as less demanding jobs, but is gradually occurring more and more frequently in the U.S. and similar countries where socialism is on a more gradual rise than it was in Cuba.

[Weyalan]

I should also point out that as a "middle income earner" (more than $50,000 p.a. but less than $100,000 p.a.) I typically pay about 25% of my gross wage as income tax. On top of that I pay 10% GST on most things that I buy. Some items are subject to additional tax or duty (alcohol, cigarettes, many imported goods), but most of those are discretionary.

So, on balance, I suppose that around 35-40% of my gross income goes to tax, in one form or another. Do I like that? Not particularly, but I acknowledge the benefits of it in many respects. Would I like to see my tax dollar spent in different areas? Well, yes, for sure. Would I like to see less need for welfare and more self-sufficiency? Of course.

Do I think that the whole system is so corrept and broken and unfair that I want to run away and not play any more? No.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

I should also point out that as a "middle income earner" (more than $50,000 p.a. but less than $100,000 p.a.) I typically pay about 25% of my gross wage as income tax. On top of that I pay 10% GST on most things that I buy. Some items are subject to additional tax or duty (alcohol, cigarettes, many imported goods), but most of those are discretionary.

So, on balance, I suppose that around 35-40% of my gross income goes to tax, in one form or another. Do I like that? Not particularly, but I acknowledge the benefits of it in many respects. Would I like to see my tax dollar spent in different areas? Well, yes, for sure. Would I like to see less need for welfare and more self-sufficiency? Of course.

Do I think that the whole system is so corrept and broken and unfair that I want to run away and not play any more? No.

You've left out several hidden taxes, which includes your Canadian pensioners tax paid in half from your income after you see it, and in half from your income before you see it. Also, there is the tax on the tax (you don't get a tax deduction for paying taxes).

As your income goes up, however, your rate goes up with it. Your marginal rate in Canada will be about 55% if you earn over $60k as a single person.

[Weyalan]

Originally Posted by ArtM

You've left out several hidden taxes, which includes your Canadian pensioners tax paid in half from your income after you see it, and in half from your income before you see it. Also, there is the tax on the tax (you don't get a tax deduction for paying taxes).

As your income goes up, however, your rate goes up with it. Your marginal rate in Canada will be about 55% if you earn over $60k as a single person.

I'm not Canadian, nor do I live in Canada.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

I'm not Canadian, nor do I live in Canada.

Ok, well in Canada they pay 10% GST as well. I suspect your tax law is similar in other regards as well.

[Weyalan]

The original poster was complaining about the tax regimen in Australia. I currently live, work and pay taxes in Austalia. I guess my comments were directed to counter the original premise that Australia was some sort of super-taxing communist state.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Weyalan

The original poster was complaining about the tax regimen in Australia. I currently live, work and pay taxes in Austalia. I guess my comments were directed to counter the original premise that Australia was some sort of super-taxing communist state.

I think the premise is that Australia, like the US, Canada, and most of Europe, is heading in that direction.

I feel like this approach is based on the incorrect philosophy that there is some fundamental difference between rich and poor people. It leaves out the possibility that some poor people aspire to be rich, and that some rich people will be satisfied to be poor, given the right (or wrong) conditions, or that most "rich" people are really just poor people on a larger scale.

[Greenhand]

Originally Posted by ArtM

My numbers might be rounded up slightly but are certainly not made up. Most of this comes from Wikipedia's articles, which are based on United Nations projections and statistics, and from the US tax code, which may be found at Internal Revenue Service. I've read enough of other countries' tax codes to get the clear idea that the industrialized nations are all moving in the same direction.

And people are giving up higher paying jobs in favor of lower paying, less demanding jobs. This is happening consistently in Cuba, where more demanding jobs LITERALLY pay the same as less demanding jobs, but is gradually occurring more and more frequently in the U.S. and similar countries where socialism is on a more gradual rise than it was in Cuba.

Actually, in Cuba, people are quitting professional jobs because the can earn more in the tourist industry. Whoever said that waiting tables is a less demanding job has never done it. Cuba LITERALLY does not have a system where everybody gets the same and never has.

That is not about taxes, but a defunct economy which has at least as much to do with the embargo as their own policies. The only applicable lessons would be those who chose to leave, and you would probably be surprised by the demographics of those statistics.

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by ArtM

I think the premise is that Australia, like the US, Canada, and most of Europe, is heading in that direction.

I feel like this approach is based on the incorrect philosophy that there is some fundamental difference between rich and poor people. It leaves out the possibility that some poor people aspire to be rich, and that some rich people will be satisfied to be poor, given the right (or wrong) conditions, or that most "rich" people are really just poor people on a larger scale.

For some one who does not know that Tasmania is in Australia you sure think that you know a lot about the world. I suspect that your knowledge of geography exceeds your knowledge of economic give your posts, just saying