4 ms·

What strikes me most is that there is a need for benefactors to make sure people can get a proper education. Locking education for people with a disadvantage i

by toadi 8y ago

What strikes me most is that there is a need for benefactors to make sure people can get a proper education. Locking education for people with a disadvantage in life which is not their own doing is baffling for me. Especially in a developed country... Not everyone can win the parent lottery.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fred_is_fred 8y ago
Or the rent controlled apartment lottery. A secretary now in NY in a non-rent control apartment would have $0 to put into any stocks after paying rent.
- pvg 8y ago
  It's a pretty big town.
sundvor 8y ago
Define developed? Properly developed countries such as Norway and Australia have quality public education systems. Sure, parentage always helps with the outcome, but the facilities are there for all children to do well - should they choose to do so. These countries also have universal health care. But I guess it's more important that your ultra rich stay ultra rich, to ensure a proper social divide between them and those unfortunate enough to be born to the poor. (Debating whether to use a snark mark here, landing on not).
- adventured 8y ago
  You could consume the total wealth of the entire Forbes 400 and fund healthcare in the US for eight months. It will cost $45 trillion over the next ten years to fund US healthcare, conservatively - equal to nearly half of all household wealth. What's your next idea?
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    Well, talk about a strawman. In the countries we're talking about, you have actual progressive taxation, and every dollar you take home above approx. $100k gets taxed almost 50%. That's not taxing 400 people, it's taxing the 25 million top earners in the US.
    - stephen_g 8y ago
      In Australia the marginal tax rate on $100K is more like 35%. You have to be making several hundred thousand a year to approach the maximum 45% marginal rate. Not sure how it works in Norway...
      - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
        In Norway, the ~45% maximum marginal rate kicks in at $120k. In Denmark, the ~50% rate cuts in at $75k, while in Sweden (which is the most extreme I know of) the ~60% rate cuts in at $80k. In all these countries, 10-15% of the population pays the top tax rate.
        stephen_g 8y ago
        Right. Yeah, with ours you do hit the top bracket (45%) at $180K but the actual percentage of tax across all income (the marginal rate) means that you're still only paying just over 30% at that point ($18,200 free, 19% of $18,200 to $37K, 32.5% of $37K to $87K, and 37% of $87K up to $180K = $54,232, which is about 30.1%). Even by the point you're making a million dollars a year you're still only paying 42% marginal rate, even though you're well into the 45% tax bracket. I'm generally not super opposed to having a rate as high as 60%, but the point that kicks in with Sweeden's system does seem very low...
        mortehu 8y ago
        A large part of the tax burden in Norway comes from VAT (25% of sales to consumers), and the employer's payroll tax (14.1% non-porgressive).
  - 8y ago

by toadi 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fred_is_fred 8y ago

Or the rent controlled apartment lottery. A secretary now in NY in a non-rent control apartment would have $0 to put into any stocks after paying rent.

pvg 8y ago
It's a pretty big town.

sundvor 8y ago

Define developed? Properly developed countries such as Norway and Australia have quality public education systems. Sure, parentage always helps with the outcome, but the facilities are there for all children to do well - should they choose to do so. These countries also have universal health care. But I guess it's more important that your ultra rich stay ultra rich, to ensure a proper social divide between them and those unfortunate enough to be born to the poor. (Debating whether to use a snark mark here, landing on not).

adventured 8y ago
You could consume the total wealth of the entire Forbes 400 and fund healthcare in the US for eight months. It will cost $45 trillion over the next ten years to fund US healthcare, conservatively - equal to nearly half of all household wealth. What's your next idea?
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  Well, talk about a strawman. In the countries we're talking about, you have actual progressive taxation, and every dollar you take home above approx. $100k gets taxed almost 50%. That's not taxing 400 people, it's taxing the 25 million top earners in the US.
  - stephen_g 8y ago
    In Australia the marginal tax rate on $100K is more like 35%. You have to be making several hundred thousand a year to approach the maximum 45% marginal rate. Not sure how it works in Norway...
    - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
      In Norway, the ~45% maximum marginal rate kicks in at $120k. In Denmark, the ~50% rate cuts in at $75k, while in Sweden (which is the most extreme I know of) the ~60% rate cuts in at $80k. In all these countries, 10-15% of the population pays the top tax rate.
      - stephen_g 8y ago
        Right. Yeah, with ours you do hit the top bracket (45%) at $180K but the actual percentage of tax across all income (the marginal rate) means that you're still only paying just over 30% at that point ($18,200 free, 19% of $18,200 to $37K, 32.5% of $37K to $87K, and 37% of $87K up to $180K = $54,232, which is about 30.1%). Even by the point you're making a million dollars a year you're still only paying 42% marginal rate, even though you're well into the 45% tax bracket. I'm generally not super opposed to having a rate as high as 60%, but the point that kicks in with Sweeden's system does seem very low...
      - mortehu 8y ago
        A large part of the tax burden in Norway comes from VAT (25% of sales to consumers), and the employer's payroll tax (14.1% non-porgressive).
- 8y ago