6 ms·

As someone from Europe, I had heard before about bankrupting ambulance rides, slavery in prisons, and food deserts. I did not expect to add “lunch money humilia

As someone from Europe, I had heard before about bankrupting ambulance rides, slavery in prisons, and food deserts. I did not expect to add “lunch money humiliation ritual” to that list. I’ll think of this next time I complain about my 50% income tax.

taxedrollik 1y ago
50% sounds manageable still. Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. Assuming no costs to deliver, I need to bill 10K€ to net ~3,5K€. It makes exports uncompetitive with other lower taxed countries. Despite this, seeing a general practitioner can take months for issues that aren't-killing-you-right-now.
- Suppafly 1y ago
  >Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. A decent portion of that goes towards your retirement though right? It's not like it's just vague government services you don't benefit from.
- Symbiote 1y ago
  To make a useful contribution to the discussion, at least say what country this applies to. You also seem to have added business taxes onto the income taxes.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Ahh but you can see a general practicioner! That puts you head an shoulders over the average urban californian saddled with being triaged into the stripmall based urgent care system for lack of regional hospitals and gps. Corporate healthcare solutions are no greener grass than your public option… wait until you find out what is considered a cosmetic procedure (like having teeth).
- scotty79 1y ago
  It really doesn't matter how much tax you pay. If everyone pays 65% it's the same as if everyone paid 0. Income tax doesn't come from the pocket of a worker. Employer needs to pay you enough so that you can live your life the way you want to. If he doesn't, you just don't work for him and he has no business. They will pay you as little as they can, but the amount they optimize is the amount after tax. Economic though is focused around employers and employees but it's the customer that covers the bill down the line. As long as the consumer is healthy you can set tax as high or as low as you want to.
Baeocystin 1y ago
I still have vivid memories of getting the 'reduced cost' meal ticket for school lunch. They made all of us with the reduced tickets stand in line and wait for the other kids to get their food first, where all the other kids had to walk past and stare at us, and once everyone else was served, they'd put the food away that was given to the other kids, then hand out shitty plastic-wrapped sandwiches that were half the size of the barely-adequate meals the 'full' sized lunches got. It was all on purpose, too, to make us ashamed for not paying the full amount. The adults that chose this path were fucking evil ghouls, the lot of them. Of all the things I want my tax money to go to, ensuring that no one (and especially growing children) need to feel hunger pangs while trying to learn is close to top of the list.
- froindt 1y ago
  That experience is ridiculous, I'm sorry you had to go through that. My cousin is a teacher and is trying to support one of her students who is very food insecure. She's currently putting a box of food into the kids backpack every day, so the kid doesn't feel different/shame bringing a bag of food home. The one consistent meal the kid gets per day is the school lunch. It wasn't that child's choice to be born. Some of the biggest lifetime ROI's out there are ensuring a childhood isn't filled with trauma, involves enough nutrition to help their bodies and brains develop, etc. I have no time for people who make an argument about "the government shouldn't be providing food because it creates a dependency or expectation they'll want for life". Their lifetime earnings and contributions to society will be vastly larger if they aren't hungry during the school day. It's tough to focus and learn when you're only eating a few hundred calories per day.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rcxdude 1y ago
  You can do both, especially given the latter pays dividends. People moan about the US's domination on the world stage because it obviously benefits you, collectively, as a country, substantially. The US gets tremendously wealthy off the power and influence it buys with the way it acts on the world stage (as well as unparalleled safety and security). Which is why it grates and/or is mystifying when you complain about that state of affairs. How you distribute the wealth internally is also mystifying, but for different reasons, and largely unrelated to how you get that wealth in the first place.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    >You can do both, especially given the latter pays dividends. People moan about the US's domination on the world stage because it obviously benefits you, collectively, as a country, substantially. Foreigners are always insisting on this to me, but they're never able to come up with concrete examples that are very compelling. The US was doing absolutely fine prior to WW2, back when we didn't feel Europe was our problem. Our economy was going like gangbusters during that period, in fact. If Europeans really think it so wonderful to dominate the world stage, they should be very happy for the US to step aside and let Europe take a try. The fact that they aren't happy shows that they're not being honest. >Which is why it grates and/or is mystifying when you complain about that state of affairs. How you distribute the wealth internally is also mystifying, but for different reasons, and largely unrelated to how you get that wealth in the first place. It's very simple. I want the dollars spent defending Europe to be spent here at home. The way I see it, a nation can emphasize one, or maybe two, of the following three: growth, welfare state, military. Post-WW2 US has historically emphasized "growth" and "military". Emphasizing "military" is silly because we barely face any military threats, and we were doing great prior to WW2 with far less military spending. Europe has historically chosen "welfare state". I want the US to switch to emphasizing "growth" and "welfare state", and let the Europeans handle their own continent. The fact that Europe has historically underinvested in growth and military is very much their problem.
panick21_ 1y ago
Switzerland spends like 30% of GDP and pretty low debt. So I don't think you need 50% of GDP to fix any of the issues mentioned.

taxedrollik 1y ago

50% sounds manageable still. Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. Assuming no costs to deliver, I need to bill 10K€ to net ~3,5K€. It makes exports uncompetitive with other lower taxed countries. Despite this, seeing a general practitioner can take months for issues that aren't-killing-you-right-now.

Suppafly 1y ago
>Currently paying ~65% of whatever I bill, in taxes and that hurts quite a lot. A decent portion of that goes towards your retirement though right? It's not like it's just vague government services you don't benefit from.
Symbiote 1y ago
To make a useful contribution to the discussion, at least say what country this applies to. You also seem to have added business taxes onto the income taxes.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Ahh but you can see a general practicioner! That puts you head an shoulders over the average urban californian saddled with being triaged into the stripmall based urgent care system for lack of regional hospitals and gps. Corporate healthcare solutions are no greener grass than your public option… wait until you find out what is considered a cosmetic procedure (like having teeth).
scotty79 1y ago
It really doesn't matter how much tax you pay. If everyone pays 65% it's the same as if everyone paid 0. Income tax doesn't come from the pocket of a worker. Employer needs to pay you enough so that you can live your life the way you want to. If he doesn't, you just don't work for him and he has no business. They will pay you as little as they can, but the amount they optimize is the amount after tax. Economic though is focused around employers and employees but it's the customer that covers the bill down the line. As long as the consumer is healthy you can set tax as high or as low as you want to.

Baeocystin 1y ago

I still have vivid memories of getting the 'reduced cost' meal ticket for school lunch. They made all of us with the reduced tickets stand in line and wait for the other kids to get their food first, where all the other kids had to walk past and stare at us, and once everyone else was served, they'd put the food away that was given to the other kids, then hand out shitty plastic-wrapped sandwiches that were half the size of the barely-adequate meals the 'full' sized lunches got. It was all on purpose, too, to make us ashamed for not paying the full amount. The adults that chose this path were fucking evil ghouls, the lot of them. Of all the things I want my tax money to go to, ensuring that no one (and especially growing children) need to feel hunger pangs while trying to learn is close to top of the list.

froindt 1y ago
That experience is ridiculous, I'm sorry you had to go through that. My cousin is a teacher and is trying to support one of her students who is very food insecure. She's currently putting a box of food into the kids backpack every day, so the kid doesn't feel different/shame bringing a bag of food home. The one consistent meal the kid gets per day is the school lunch. It wasn't that child's choice to be born. Some of the biggest lifetime ROI's out there are ensuring a childhood isn't filled with trauma, involves enough nutrition to help their bodies and brains develop, etc. I have no time for people who make an argument about "the government shouldn't be providing food because it creates a dependency or expectation they'll want for life". Their lifetime earnings and contributions to society will be vastly larger if they aren't hungry during the school day. It's tough to focus and learn when you're only eating a few hundred calories per day.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rcxdude 1y ago
You can do both, especially given the latter pays dividends. People moan about the US's domination on the world stage because it obviously benefits you, collectively, as a country, substantially. The US gets tremendously wealthy off the power and influence it buys with the way it acts on the world stage (as well as unparalleled safety and security). Which is why it grates and/or is mystifying when you complain about that state of affairs. How you distribute the wealth internally is also mystifying, but for different reasons, and largely unrelated to how you get that wealth in the first place.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  >You can do both, especially given the latter pays dividends. People moan about the US's domination on the world stage because it obviously benefits you, collectively, as a country, substantially. Foreigners are always insisting on this to me, but they're never able to come up with concrete examples that are very compelling. The US was doing absolutely fine prior to WW2, back when we didn't feel Europe was our problem. Our economy was going like gangbusters during that period, in fact. If Europeans really think it so wonderful to dominate the world stage, they should be very happy for the US to step aside and let Europe take a try. The fact that they aren't happy shows that they're not being honest. >Which is why it grates and/or is mystifying when you complain about that state of affairs. How you distribute the wealth internally is also mystifying, but for different reasons, and largely unrelated to how you get that wealth in the first place. It's very simple. I want the dollars spent defending Europe to be spent here at home. The way I see it, a nation can emphasize one, or maybe two, of the following three: growth, welfare state, military. Post-WW2 US has historically emphasized "growth" and "military". Emphasizing "military" is silly because we barely face any military threats, and we were doing great prior to WW2 with far less military spending. Europe has historically chosen "welfare state". I want the US to switch to emphasizing "growth" and "welfare state", and let the Europeans handle their own continent. The fact that Europe has historically underinvested in growth and military is very much their problem.

panick21_ 1y ago

Switzerland spends like 30% of GDP and pretty low debt. So I don't think you need 50% of GDP to fix any of the issues mentioned.