ftf, i think u should sign for ss, it's there for a reason...if your quality of life has deteriorated u should do everything in your power to improve it, infact i think u got a sorta obligation to make sure your havin' everythin' u deserve. all the best
Thanks, but no way, man. No ss for me. I think I'll be all right if I were to actually apply myself. Just been taking it easy the last few years. Eventually, when I start making the millions, I want to help the sick. I've got a lot of ideas about how things should be done. I think individuals have better ideas about how to get things done than the gov. I want the best for people. I think the gov limits the potential for achieving what's best for the people. I think individuals and groups of citizens can do things better and more efficiently than self-serving politicians and bureaucrats. But you hear of little talk or encouragement about individuals helping others, people expect the gov to do everything.
Your assuming that 'society' will be so horrified to seeing something like this that they would rush to volunteer their money so much they want to have this problem solved. Except people DO NOT when it comes to their OWN MONEY. Think about it, if they people were so horrified by those kinds of events and they were so unnaceptable private charity would have solved this problems a long time ago, medicare would never been needed, there would be no world hunger, everybody would flock to places like africa and you would see massive private charity contributions(you would see people donating the majority of their income and dramatically lowering their standards of living in order to raise other's) People would allow complete homeless unknowns live on their house in order to solve their problems. While a few act on this way the majority do not which reflects the TRUE choice of society when it comes to their own money. So 'society' already made its choice, which is use a partial fraction of it's income to help others and nothing more. Now when it comes to taxation and the money is not yours the generosity all the sudden gets much bigger
Now when it comes to taxation and the money is not yours the generosity all the sudden gets much bigger The problem is there are still lots of people who actually believe that politicians really care. Lets give the government more money and everything will be beautiful. We will live happily ever after. DUMB.DUMB.DUMB.
Huh? People don't volunteer their money for the military either, people don't volunteer their money to build a new road or fix a bridge, to pay for FDIC or enforce EPA regulations and these programs are not financed by private charities either. Yet people recognize that the military has to be strong, roads must be built and fixed, the environment must be protected...That's exactly what governments are for - to do things that everyone realizes need to be done but that can't for various reasons be accomplished by individuals, private businesses or charities. And yeah, people dying in the streets is one of the things everyone realizes should not happen in the 21st century in a civilized society.
There's no capital gains tax in Switzerland. Or in most of Europe for that matter. Ask your buddy George Soros why the Quantum Fund is domiciled in Bermuda.....
There's no capital gains tax in Switzerland. Or in most of Europe for that matter. "Switzerland does not have capital gain taxes, except for people whose professional activity it is to buy and sell assets of a certain type (for example shares) and for real estate located in Switzerland." http://www.live-in-switzerland.com/e/faq/capital-gains-taxes.html It's actually nice to live in a country like Switzerland which does not have to spend a fortune on the military (that you support), on the war in Iraq (that you also support), on corporate welfare (that you again support). You can have Universal Healthcare, long vacations, subsidized public transportation and subsidized higher education (all things you don't support) and still pay the same amount or even slightly less taxes. Ask your buddy George Soros why the Quantum Fund is domiciled in Bermuda..... OK, I will.
Quote from dddooo: There's no capital gains tax in Switzerland. Or in most of Europe for that matter. "Switzerland does not have capital gain taxes, except for people whose professional activity it is to buy and sell assets of a certain type (for example shares) and for real estate located in Switzerland." http://www.live-in-switzerland.com/e/faq/capital-gains-taxes.html It's actually nice to live in a country like Switzerland which does not have to spend a fortune on the military (that you support), on the war in Iraq (that you also support), on corporate welfare (that you again support). You can have Universal Healthcare, long vacations, subsidized public transportation and subsidized higher education (all things you don't support) and still pay the same amount or even slightly less taxes. I don't support the war in Iraq. I don't vehemently oppose it either. I'm agnostic. If it were me, I wouldn't go to war anywhere. Except for Israel. I'm 90% isolationist. I'm also against welfare or subsidies for business. Conservatives can't help it though that you're fat ass beurocrats at Labor keep buying zillions of GE lightbulbs. So vis à vis the shear size of the Federal largesse de facto corporate subsidation will always be alive and well. Apologies to Lee Iacoca. I'm in favor of increased transportation spending. I'm not extremely anti-Federal government. But the notion of a central government this big and this expensive is anchoritic to the new mobility of the information age. More people are going to become world citizens, more capital is going to be invested, lent, speculated and sheltered across national boundaries than ever before. The idea of bloated nanny states is soon to perish. If one looks at the gross fiscal and social problems in Europe and the America's, governments are clearly the culprit. Ask your buddy George Soros why the Quantum Fund is domiciled in Bermuda..... OK, I will.
Where Do Democrats Go From Here? by Michael Barone Posted Nov 27, 2006 What will the Democrats do with their majorities in Congress? The 2006 campaign was pretty much an idea-free zone and provides only a few clues. In their hearts, most elected Democrats would like to move us some distance closer to a European-style welfare state -- slouching toward Scandinavia, some conservatives might call it. But they are likely to find it difficult to do so, and not just because of George W. Bush's hitherto almost unused veto power. Take the proposal they usually put first on the list: raising the minimum wage. Only about 2 percent of earners now make the minimum, and some jobs will disappear when it's raised. Moreover, most minimum-wage earners are not heads of households. Any progressive economic redistribution will be minimal. Even liberal economists agree that you'd get much more redistribution by expanding the earned income tax credit. But that could increase the marginal tax rate on low earners at the point where the EITC tapers off, unless tax rates are cut. Democrats might be inclined to do that, but it would be at a heavy cost. That's because the Democrats have sworn to reintroduce "pay-go" rules on tax cuts. That's a backward-looking move: It would have made it harder for recent Republican Congresses to cut taxes. But it will force Democrats, if they want to cut low earners' tax rates or extend the middle class portions of the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010, to find compensating spending cuts or tax increases. It will also make it harder for Democrats to do something they must do for political reasons -- adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was passed in 1969 to ensure that no one could totally avoid taxes. It sets up a separate income tax system, without many normally applicable deductions. Because it has not been indexed for inflation, it's slated to apply to rapidly increasing numbers of taxpayers with incomes around $100,000 and lots of deductions in high-income Democratic states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and California. Congress has been adjusting the AMT year by year. The high revenue projected in out-years makes it impossible to abolish under the pay-go rule, and even an annual fix is very expensive. But an important Democratic constituency -- public employee unions -- has a vested interest in adjusting the AMT. AMT taxpayers can't deduct the high state and local income taxes in these states, and may be motivated to vote to cut the state and local taxes that are the public employee union's lifeblood. Democrats may be able to pass bills raising taxes on high earners and raising the 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends. But such bills are almost certain to be vetoed, and the response to the 1993 Clinton tax increases suggests that "soak the rich" is not a sure winner in elections. Increased deductions or tax credits for college tuition is on the Democrats' to-do list and would certainly be popular with beleaguered parents. But colleges and universities have been sopping up previous tax breaks by raising tuitions at above-inflation rates, and presumably would do so again. Thoughtful Democrats like Clinton aide Gene Sperling and Yale professor Jacob Hacker have argued that Americans, even amid prosperity, are increasingly insecure in our globalized economy and wary of downside risks if they have to change jobs or learn new skills. They look back with nostalgia sometimes toward the unionized lifetime jobs many held 50 years ago in mid-century America, and argue that government needs to provide more protection against risk. The problem is how to do it. Congress cannot recreate mid-century America by snapping its fingers, and the seemingly risk-free health benefits and pensions that unionized companies promised are now in peril because the business model of firms like the Big Three auto companies, the old-line steel companies and the legacy airlines has become unsustainable. One interesting proposal by Sperling is for a "universal 401(k)," which would give all workers tax-sheltered savings accounts, funded by employers and employees. One option is to give low earners tax credits, perhaps even refundable tax credits, for their contributions to the accounts. Over time, this would increase low earners' wealth accumulation -- progressive redistribution. But it would also tend to transfer funds from the federal treasury to individuals, from the public sector to the private sector -- not the direction Democrats usually want to go. It's a proposal that looks a lot like the Social Security individual investment accounts George W. Bush called for, and Democrats scorned. It would be ironic if this turns out to be the major progressive achievement of this Democratic Congress.