Arthur Laffer has an excellent article in today's WSJ. In 2011 once the Bush tax cuts expire, the liberals in congress will drastically raise taxes on all forms of income. and state and local taxes will also go up in order to finance various expenditures. for finance professionals in NYC, don't be surprised if you end up paying around 60% of your gross income in taxes.
Trending Content
Career Resources
60% is OK- assuming the middle class is paying at least north of 40% so everyone's sharing the pain. 70% wouldn't work well for anyone and would encourage a lot of people to migrate elsewhere.
That said, maybe when we were saying the pledge of allegiance or having them play the star spangled banner at swim meets or football games, we were just going through the motions. We didn't really care about the fact that the US- even under fascist Democrats as some folks like to call them- helped dramatically increase the amount of economic and political freedom in the world over the past 100 years. The fact that grandpa almost got killed by the Japanese four times during WWII doesn't really make much of a difference to us. We just care about OUR money and the government raising taxes back to levels that we saw in the '60s and '70s (but lower than the levels we saw in the '40s and '50s) is patently unfair.
In any case, Laffer is missing the point. This is like complaining that kids have less fun and the family does fewer activities when Mom and Dad spend less money and work harder to pay down debt. Sure; we could cut taxes to 0% next year and GDP would skyrocket. That wouldn't fix the debt problem that started as a result of ERTA and Reagan's borrow-and-spend policies of the 1980s- partly driven by Laffer.
We will need to have an extended period of moderately high taxes and reduced spending in order to get the debt under control. Our grandparents survived WWII and the Great Depression; what we're facing today is a whole lot less painful than Kamikazes and bread lines. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, people who complained about the problems government was trying to wrestle with were considered un-American. Why has it suddenly become so pro-American to complain about paying down the debt? And why is Laffer, the king of deficit spending, qualified to speak about the country's fiscal policies? This is like that crazy uncle who's declared bankruptcy five times telling his nephew that his parents should quit their full-time jobs, stop paying their bills, and spend more time with their families.
Problem is that the democrats want us to pay higher taxes but are not willing to cut wasteful entitlement programs. The period from 1965-1980, before the Reagan Revolution, was a terrible moment in our nation's history. Liberal policies led to social disorder, high crime, a stagnant economy, and humiliation abroad. I am deeply worried because this country is straying from basic principles that made us the greatest nation in human history.
The fact of that matter is that we haven't had a true conservative in the White House since Eisenhower- with the exception of maybe Ford. Both Bushes (particularly Bush II) were borrow-and-spend neoconservatives, Reagan was a borrow-and-spend neoconservative, and Nixon was a print-and-spend Neoconservative.
I'm not going to vote for a Republican unless he advocates RAISING taxes and ending social security/medicare. Until that happens, I'm sticking to libertarians or dems.
You can't have a limited government unless you have a limited debt.
Social security is broken, I don't think anyone disagrees on that, but ending it isn't the solution. Leaving aside the issue that starving grandmothers make for some pretty bad PR, social security programs are pretty much agreed to be a good thing, in that they raise the savings rate - US net savings are negative with social security; just think what they would be without it.
You can certainly list many problems with social security (and medicare), but I'll just touch on a few. Firstly, it was never paid in to by the original recipients, and that sort of pay as you go funding will soon create problems due to shifting demographics - more old people whose social security contributions were spent on parts of the budget they shouldn't have been, and fewer young people to pay in. However, fixing it is not impossible - when it was created, people did not live nearly as long as they do today, and a few years retirement was the most it was expected to fund. Today, people can spend a third of their lives on social security. If you raise the retirement age, you will simultaneously decrease social security expenditures and increase GDP and tax revenues (more workers = higher wages & higher GDP = higher tax revenue).
As for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, they were never a good idea in the first place. In case you've forgotten, they came about like this: Bill Clinton left the nation with a projected surplus of ~1 trillion dollars, partially due to good governing, and partially due to expansionary monetary policy. Alan Greenspan opened his mouth prior to the 2000 election, and said that the best possible way to spend that money would be a tax cut (because whenever you have money, God knows you have to spend it). Because Alan Greenspan was widely seen as a living God, Al Gore and George Bush competed over who could come up with the bigger tax cut, Bush won the election, and so we got his tax cut instead of Gore's.
These tax levels were paid as recently as ten years ago, and in case no one has looked at economic metrics recently, we haven't come very far in the ten years without them. Somehow, I don't think letting the Bush tax cuts phase out is going to hold us back - but I'm pretty damn sure ending up in a debt spiral will.
Besides, where does Laffer think people are going to go? Europe is hardly looking so hot (the UK top marginal rate is >100%), and everyone isn't going to move to China.
The abortion reduces crime theory is based on some questionable analysis. It caught on like wildfire simply because it sounds so cool and counterintuitive. While it is an interesting theory, I wouldn't accept it as true.
I agree that it would take really high tax rates to cause people to actually stop working or start moving. The lure of the money (and the accompanying prestige, power, bs...) and the hassle of moving to a different country are too great. Seriously, how much extra money would it take you to leave your country, which presumably has most of your friends, your favorite things to do, etc if you were already filthy rich?
>100% tax rate? That assertion seems questionable, but yeah from a tax perspective the US ain't got nothing on the vast majority of Europe
1941% > 100%
That's an outlier and would apply to only a portion of the income of a fraction of the population, and may be revised in the new budget, but yes, the theoretical top marginal rate in the UK is almost 2000% - most people would top out at a marginal rate of 62% / 52%.
See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/39e474e4-3900-11df-8970-00144feabdc0.html
[quote=dazedmonk]The abortion reduces crime theory is based on some questionable analysis. It caught on like wildfire simply because it sounds so cool and counterintuitive. While it is an interesting theory, I wouldn't accept it as true.
Agreed, see Freedomnomics by John Lott
And this hypothesis is based on what, exactly?
Anyone want to comment on the liberal policy that Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics, thinks also brought crime down?
Back in 1955, the vast majority of federal spending was still on the military, though. Eisenhower didn't expand big government. Obviously, you can't roll back a system like Social Security unless the federal government is having a fiscal crisis, but oh well. I agree. The one thing I like about him is that he's not promising tax cuts- just spending cuts. I don't have kids in school, though, and I am hearing that he's cutting school spending dramatically without regard for the quality of education in the state. Well, in a few years when Social Security begins paying out more than it takes in, social security will begin decreasing net savings. Also, net consumer savings have increased pretty dramatically since 2006, so I am not worried in the long run if the feds also cut spending on social security.I am OK paying social security tax; and even the concept of forcing people to save for retirement is also OK with me. I just don't want the government in charge of it. If we force everyone to save at least 5% of their income for retirement in an FDIC-insured or federally guaranteed product, in addition to the social security tax and cut off everyone from social security benefits under age 35, we'll have a much more stable system in the long run that will still allow people to retire at age 75 with some benefits if they go with an annuity. Naturally, as old Social Security beneficiaries die off, the percentage paid into social security can be reduced in favor of the new pre-paid retirement scheme.
Unfortunately it smells like Rome is catching on fire.
Raise taxes.. fine
But at least cut my student loan interest! Im a religious studies major for Gods sake, how am I gonna pay it back? (JK on the RS Major ;P)
Agreed, the premise that abortions actually brought down crime makes some sense. If you have a population of drug addicts and other people that are not ready to raise kids suddenly have the option of abortion, these people are not going to procreate little delinquents. It is kind of a self sterilization. It would be better if these people just learned about safe sex, but if you can’t pass 9th grade math, chances are you’re going to have a tough time with a condom..
Personally, I think it would be better if instead of abortion these people were raised right or put to use. That oftentimes isn’t an option. State custody wouldn’t be an option and not enough people actually need to raise kids. Manual labor has been replaced by technology, mainly due to workers rights and the headache management has to go through providing standards in the work place. The same can be said of the military. If we could get rid of a lot of government intervention in the labor markets, these would be criminals would actually have something to do. With an increase in population, a decrease in spending, and taxes staying the same; the US could improve fiscally. However, things would get pretty crazy. The class distinctions we have now would pale in comparison.
Sooo, your argument is that people who aren't even capable of making the proper decision to not be addicted to drugs are going to be responsible enough to decide to abort their "mistake"??? That logic just doesn't hold water.
The fact of the matter is, the people whose kids are more likely to be criminals are the ones who aren't capable of making informed decisions. This is why they often are unmarried, unemployed and have multiple kids by multiple men. My father recently had a court case in which this lady, who is in court every week or so, who has like 13 kids already and is pregnant with the 14 has no job and hasn't ever worked. One might wondered how you can have a dozen kids with 4 different men and never work. Well, luckily the government is there to support her bad decisions be sending her thousands of dollars a month in welfare and SSI for certain "disabilities". Ironically when the judge asked a woman why she and her kids get SSI checks, she said she didn't know, they just come every month and she cashes them.
This would be one of the reasons our country is going bankrupt.
Regards
Once you have a kid on hands, the sudden displeasure of having to have an abortion(time, money) is much larger than the significantly discounted future displeasure of having to raise said kid.
on the rationality argument, these people are rational in the economic terminology, just their future utility is very very heavily discounted.
Finally, a real quality thread with real quality posts. Now if we can just get rid of those "Can I Retire at [specified age]" threads and the like.
We have (quasi)quality threads with decent frequency. In the past two weeks, see:
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/meet-the-8074-new-york-transit-wo… http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/article-in-the-nytimes-about-100k… http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/israel-attack-on-ships-carrying-h…
We have (quasi)quality threads with decent frequency. In the past two weeks, see:
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/meet-the-8074-new-york-transit-wo… http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/article-in-the-nytimes-about-100k… http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/israel-attack-on-ships-carrying-h…]
Indeed. With the new flow of decent posts I think I will lurk more often now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aqZ_fhbMobdM&pos=12
Eddie Lampert is looking to avoid some of these tax increases.
"That's an outlier and would apply to only a portion of the income of a fraction of the population, and may be revised in the new budget, but yes, the theoretical top marginal rate in the UK is almost 2000% - most people would top out at a marginal rate of 62% / 52%."
Yeah for the marginal 200 pounds in a limited example. 60% or so is the real top marginal rate. We already have that here.
But seriously, this has gotten me even more pessimistic. What do you think life in the USA is like in 2030-2040? High taxes, high crime due to lingering unemployment, entitlements slashed?
1 * (1-.62) (Marginal Tax) * (1-.5) (Bonus Tax) * (1-.175) (VAT) = .15675 = 84% Effective tax rate on a not insignificant part of your income last year (not even mentioning other sundry taxes & fees)
I'm guessing some Clockwork Orange senario will be playing out. Economics will force us to deal with crime in a less than conventional manner. We will either bring back gladiators to make room in prisons, screne out the genetically predisposed to criminal acts, or make it physically imposible for people to commit crimes(Clockwork Orange). We'll also probably all be eating soylent green.
Here's to 2030!
It sounds like this lady is perhaps mentally ill. Having kids takes time. If this lady wasn't getting hand outs from the government she'd probably turn to abortion. If not she, isn't rational. Drugs and mental illness do that. I think overall abortion helped get rid of some of the problems. However, there might be people that are even too stupid to figure birth control and abortions.
I can see it the other way. Most intelligent people are going to be the ones that get abortions and use birth control. Mostly because they have a grasp on responsibility and can pay for it. It will be interesting to see what happens with universal health care. I wonder if the reason Europe has a lower crime rate is because everyone has access to abortions and birth control?
Sadly, she doesn't have a mental illness and truthfully, until you are exposed to this part of society (either by living in it or simply witnessing their behavior) you just have no clue how rampant this mentality is. I've sat in the court room on a number of occasions and witnessed a whole days worth of cases in which the mother doesn't, and in some cases has never, worked and makes more than someone employed full time at minimum wage! The social programs allow her not to work, she lives on welfare and checks given to compensate for disabilities such as ADHD and slow mental development. Well guess what? Any child that doesn't go to school on a regular basis could likely test out and show slow development. My parents adopted several kids, all of whom had 'issues'. The two youngest, who are twins, were born excessively premature, one in a taxi and the other in the hospital. Their wristband the hospital put on them was the same size as my dad's wedding band. They have been in and out of the hospital for the first 10 years of their lives (one more than the other) because the shunts that were placed in their skulls when they were born malfunctioned every few months (give or take). The oldest one (born in the cab) is barely above a mentally handicapped level and as a 19 year old test out at a 3rd grade level for most things. Both have been diagnosed with ADD and ADHD and have been on medication their entire life. Never have my parents received a check on a monthly basis because the kids weren't doing as well as they should. Is that a big deal? No, my parents fostered and subsequently adopted my brothers knowing there were going to be issues. The problem is when a person milks the system like my father tells me about on a daily basis.
The point is, this isn't a rare occurrence. What seems like an illness to us is actually the generally accepted behavior among the member of the "poor" communities. There are so many people that want to point fingers at someone else and collect a check because it isn't their fault., its just unfair...their textbooks weren't as good as someone else, their test were culturally biased. The fact of the matter is, if you took a person out of the ghetto/trailer park and said, hey, you could earn 100k+ but you have to get a 4 year degree and work 80-100 hours a week for two years, they would laugh in your face, rip the top off their malt liquor bottle/Busch beer can and slam the screen door in your face. These type of people are not interested in working, partly because they are lazy and partly because a check will show up on the 1st and 15th.
It took me a month after I lost my job before I finally broke down and filed for unemployment because it, in my mind, was embarrassing and a low point in my life. It still is, I rarely told anyone I was collecting it because to me it implies that I'm a lazy person who isn't wiling to work hard. Sadly, we have become a welfare nation. Even more alarming is the continued push to become even more so. The liberal agenda is going to seriously cause irreversible situations (it already has) as they continue to attempt to level the playing field and make society even and fair.
Regards
I have always liked the idea of regulating who is allowed to have children. Implant birth control into everyone at birth, and allow it to be turned off for a year or so at any time for a fee of 5 or 10K. Put this fee into an account for the child. Easy as that. If you don't have that money, you are clearly not ready to have a child.
On a serious note, I second everyone that said that until you are around individuals who act like this, it is hard to believe it happens.
Bravo, actually I worked at a court for 2 years and lived in the East LA/inner city Long Beach area for 2 years. Both separate occasions. I saw shootings, I saw drug addiction, I saw disease, 2-1 and Lewis was in one of the areas I lived. Life is harsh there.
Streetn, I completely agree. The question is how can we get these people with out-of-whack utilities to not further damage society. Bravo, it's great that your family has adopted. The issue is how do we stop it from happening in the first place. For me abortion is a cursory quick fix at best, and as demonstrated and not a for sure fix. The people that probably should be using it, aren't.
In the end it's a question of how do you get people to be good. Largely a theological question. It becomes easier to have a firm argument if religion is involved. However, forced religion is never good and you can't make people believe that they should do good, based on some theology. Religion is a personal matter. People will never be fully control for very long. If people could be controlled, a common attempt by many, things might be different; most likely worse.
Wouldn't you know...so I opened the paper just a few short hours after submitting my previous post and guess who is the paper? Yeah, same lady. I do need to make some adjustments to my previous statement. See "only" has 12 kids (I believe she actually has 14 but only 12 are mentioned because they are under the age of 18). So she was living in a motel room...yes, one room, with all 12 of her kids. Apparently she was in debt to the local housing authority which is why see was probably living in the motel room, however, some people found out about the situation, felt bad for the kids and raised the money to pay off the debt. In addition, they found her a six bedroom house where she would be able to live rent free with her 12 kids. So there's a hearing prior to her being able to move into this house to make sure she is fit to raise the kids and the judge asks her a few questions. First if she was pregnant again and second, who would be visiting the house. This lady told the judge it was none of her business if she was pregnant and none of her business who visits the house. The judge explained, yes it was her business, the house was being provided by the tax payers and the safety of the children is a concern so she needed to know who was going to be visiting. The lady just stopped answering the judge's questions. The judge told her to answer the questions or she would be held in contempt of court, go to jail for the night and the kids would be placed in foster care until they worked through the whole thing. The lady basically told her to get lost.
The judge threw her in jail and the kids were placed in foster care. So they worked out a deal where the uncle was going to take care of the kids so they weren't in foster care however, since then the uncle has said the mother is nothing but disrespectful and unthankful for the help so he has decided not to take the kids. So the saga continues.
Don't worry though, there is good news. The article pointed out that 3 of the 4 or 5 fathers showed up to the hearing. Of course one of them was wearing an orange jumpsuit and in handcuffs because he is serving time on a 5 year sentence for a drug conviction.
Again, this is a person who can't even take help when it is given to her...she is that selfish. She doesn't care enough about her kids to keep them out of foster care and answer some questions, no matter how trivial they are. She allows her kids to remained sheltered in the foster care system because she is thankless for what her brother is trying to do. Not only does this 'mother' not deserve her kids, but more importantly, these kids don't deserve this type of 'mother'.
Lets take a look at this case...unwed, multiple kids with multiple men, drugs and no education. I see a pattern forming here.
Also, Dr. Joe might have something going with his proposal there.
Regards
To get people to stop this very short term behaviour you need to change their value systems and turn them into more future oriented beings. This is taught mainly through surroundings, and you can see this quite clearly by entire societys being more present or future oriented(compare germany to brazil for example).
The issue is these kids are born into this surrounding and instilling adequate values is quite difficult. Schooling is an option, but teachers have v. little influence relative to parents and peers. The only way i see to stop this vicious circle is to either stop those living in those surroundings from having children, or remove any born children and bring them up in a different environment. Unfortunately neither of those options is viable.
This might actually be an interesting location do discuss this issue - anonymous enough to allow some freedom of expression. I have often pondered what can be done about this.
I am curious to see what other WSO users have to say. How can this be controlled, either in or out of the restrictions of feasibility?
More practical than my previous suggestion (pay-your-child-to-give-birth-to-it) I propose significant cash stipends for good/above average students, starting very early, ie elementary school. These would have to continue through high school, and they would be a significant expense, but (may be) less than the sum of the various future costs associated with such members of our society at present. These costs include future welfare, court costs, jails, food stamps, etc. Theoretically, such early stipends could prevent the need to find ways to make money as early, and act as an incentive to both parents and children. Perhaps the stipends could have a portion payable to the parent(s), and a portion payable to the child. I don't know if this been attempted at such a young stage.
Anyway lets hear it.
Thought about this too but grade inflation would be even more rampant and parents would be continually harassing teachers for better grades, even more so than now. School districts are bankrupt enough as it is; they definitely couldn't afford this. Besides, it plays even more into the entitlement mentality that pervades society. People should do well in school because of the future benefits, not because the government is paying them now.
An alternative would also be to cut child benefits for newly born children for people living off unemployment benefit, then again I am not sure how effective this would be as again it would only come into effect in the future. One would need a much more powerful immediate punishment for the very poor having children. Then again in the current state of society these solutions are not possible.
Direct monetary rewards for good exam performance may work, altough the economic research I read on studies done in this regard has shown mixed results. Again as you guys mentioned grade inflation etc... would be serious issues.
The institutional literature generally says this doesn't work because the direct payment offsets the intrinsic satisfaction.
I hope the guy that suggested pre-birth control is just trolling.....
Thats a good point, thats another well researched phenomenon, but can be offset by very large payments(altough then it gets uneconomical). They have tried this by asking chicago lawyers to do chariy work for either no money, little money, or theyre normal rate. They refused when offered little money, accepted working for no money, and for their normal rate. Don't have a link unfortunately.
Once you introduce money the non monetary satisfaction just evaporates, the human mind is apparently largely unable to compile the two.
I'm not sure whether or not most people on this site consider themselves religious or not, but in my mind morals play a huge role in the development of this country, especially the lower class. The fact that they lack a general moral standard and they have no role models only continues this horrible cycle of poverty and crime, etc.
I friend of mine who was born and raised in the projects for the first half of his life would speak with me candidly about what he saw, how he acted, etc. He told me that when he was younger he wanted to get good grades because he didn't want to live in the projects all his life but felt that he had to fit with the social norm of not doing his homework, skipping class, hanging on the corner trying to hustle, etc. If it was for the unfortunate death of his parents, he would not have been placed in a good home with parents who offered guidance and provided insight.
Now this applies across the entire spectrum of poor, however, the one area where this is extremely evident is in the inner city amongst the black population. There is no shame or recourse for women if they have children out of wedlock (studies have shown a 2 parent household matters tremendously in a child's upbringing/development, etc.) so mothers have many kids often with several different guys. Not only are they not married, but even worse, the fathers don't stick around, mostly because they don't care but often because they are incarcerated. This situation essentially creates a void of solid, law abiding male role models among the lower class (blacks in this case). Then the black males that the young male kids could associate with that do overcome the adversity of an impoverished background are often written off as 'uncle toms' or 'un-hip' because they wear a suit and live in white suburbia...essentially losing any street cred they might have originally possessed thus, becoming a poor choice of a role model for a kid that wants to fit in.
The issue I see is a lack of leadership in the black community. The most prominent and outspoken black leaders I can think of are probably hurting the cause more than helping (Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton). By showing up and conducting rallies in which you essentially scapegoat any minority only makes matters worse because these people who participate never learn to take responsibility for their actions and are always quick to point a finger at someone else. The strong black leaders need to get back into the inner city communities and 'preach' abstinence (or safe sex at the very least), encourage the kids to get an education, have goals, condemn the worthless men who have kids and don't take care of them, condemn the violence and ghetto stereotypes that these kids eventually subscribe too and condemn the black-on-black crime that occurs in these neighborhoods on a daily basis. Unfortunately someone with the credibility (I use that term extremely loosely) to do all these things, Mr. Obama, who is the currently the President of United States of America, who has overcome the odds, who has attended great schools and managed to get a top-notch education despite his background is practically silent on the issue. Even more ironic is the fact that averything described above occurs in the state and city in which he comes from...so it's not as if he doesn't know about it.
Bottom line: until its acceptable for a young black male to aspire to be a Supreme Court Judge or a Fortune 500 CEO, instead of a professional athlete or musician/rapper there will always be the issues that currently plague poor people, whether its the projects or the trailer parks. And there are no social programs that can instill morals, it can only be done by those people who these kids look-up too, mimic and aspire to be.
Note: Morals don't necessary imply religious beliefs but religious beliefs typically imply morals.
Regards
Why has Obama not led my people? I weep at the plight of my fellow man, especially in Africa. Sometimes I guess I don't realize how lucky I am my father was successful even in Nigeria. I also don't realize how lucky I am we got green cards to the U.S. when I was only 8 so Ive had all the luck of this education system. I have relatives that struggle everyday to eat, my father can only support so many relatives (he is the reason their getting by...)... with four kids, 2 in college, and a wife. My goal is to be rich, ridiculously rich. Rich enough where none of my extended relatives have to worry a day in their lives, even if their in that terrible country. Ive seen things you would not believe, we are all lucky to be in the U.S., trust me. I want to be the one that pays the tuition of my 2 younger siblings, as well as my father and mother's retirement. Most of all I want to have enough where I can truly touch people beyond my personal existence, our health-care system is truly 3rd world in Nigeria, I want to be the one to fix that. I don't know if its asking for too much in life to have enough to do so much for so many people, but in all honesty, its what im living to try to do because this world is just too fucked up to not try and change it.
Obama hasn't led black people because his being black became a liability the instant he won the Democratic nomination. Don't be naive.
Interesting comment about Obama not acting as a role model to inner city kids, but as someone else mentioned, his "street cred" is not likely to amount to much.
As far as the paying for grades system, I think grade inflation can be overcome - simply force a bell curve. Some companies do this for performance ratings (would be curious to see how exactly) but I dont think thats the main problem.
I think such payments might be some of the only things that can motivate these individuals in the short term. Someone said that a good job after college should do that, and yeah, it should, but scroll up and read the example about the trailer occupant considering investment banking. I think that is very true. Also, I see (very) little relevance in the example about lawyers - these children are quite different...
However, I am not saying this is the ideal solution - just the first one that comes to mind (admittedly, after a good bit of thinking). A few have posted accurate reasons for why the problem exists, but please propose a possible solution!
I maybe support the financial incentive for grades, but let me ask you a question.
I walk around Philly, I walk around NYC, I walk around London. How many Indian or Chinese people do you think I or you for that matter find living on the street, dropping out of school, turning to a life of crime? I haven't seen one. India and China are pretty poor countries with horrible living standards. Difference is there is a culture where education is pushed, educated professionals are role models and there is usually a strong family unit.
You could air lift 10,000 Chinese people, stuff them in a ghetto and probably 90% would go to college and get jobs. The other 10% would open a Chinese restaurant and at least not be a burden on society. Some people piss opportunity away and others run with it.
This nation has a lot of people who piss it away.
I agree that there are a lot of people in this country that piss it away. But to answer your question, I think selection bias accounts for the disparity you mentioned. The Chinese and Indian people that you see walking around Philly and NYC are here for a reason. They are often (usually, or at least the ones that go to college are) the children of ambitious parents who brought them here for the opportunities the US provides. That is why they do better than the inner city kids we are discussing - they have the leadership figures in their lives that are not present in many of the inner-city households.
I would also argue that those asian/indian kids would sell drugs just as quickly as anyone else if they are to be raised by the typical inner-city family/community. And the converse would also likely hold - the inner-city drug-dealer-to-be would also go to college if he were raised by parents who cared enough to come to this country to give him a chance at being successful.
"1 * (1-.62) (Marginal Tax) * (1-.5) (Bonus Tax) * (1-.175) (VAT) = .15675 = 84% Effective tax rate on a not insignificant part of your income last year (not even mentioning other sundry taxes & fees)"
The bonus tax is payed by your employer and you don't pay VAT on income, do you?
A tax paid by your employer is effectively the same thing as a tax paid by you.
And no, you don't pay VAT on income, but if you're using that income to purchase something, you're paying VAT - hence, my caveat that this represents a not insignificant proportion of income; obviously, as income goes up, expenditure declines as a proportion of income, but there's quite a lot of your income where you are (were) directly or indirectly taxed at an 84% marginal rate.
1) Taxes here are too high. I don't care that Europe pays way more, I care that we should pay less. Add in all the hidden taxes and revenue generating fines, fees, etc and you will see how we are being milked more and more.
2) Why can things not be more efficient? People make due with less, stretch a buck, etc. Why can't the government ever do that? How about shutting down government agencies that make no sense, how about laying off workers, automating, reducing pay, removing pensions and going to 401(k)'s? Why should government workers have it better than private workers. I know where all these protections came from, but working for the government is a job, not political graft.
3) Raise the age of social security. If you want to retire at age 55 then use your savings to tide you over until SSI kicks in. The other programs (Medicare/caid, welfare, etc) should be remodeled and streamlined. Look at the post office and how market forces have made them better!
4) Eliminate the tax benefit of mortgage interest and having children. If you are intelligent and prepared to have a kid the 3K or whatever they are giving now isn't going to dissuade you. The only people who will stop squirting out kids because of the tax credit elimination are people who we don't want having kids anyway.
Canada has no mortgage interest benefit and they seem ok. Get rid of the new home buyers credit also. This will help keep the housing market from heating up and bursting like a bubble, it will keep people mobile and flexible which is needed in this economy and it will stop the suburbanization of America which adds untold costs.
5) Cut spending. Schools don't need new playgrounds every year, you don't need 5 guys watching someone paving a road, we don't need 10 more cops patrolling the beat (aka sitting on the highway giving tickets to pay for their salaries), we DONT need any more government workers.
Side note, how about we replace the NY State government with a monkey and a laptop. Considering all those fools in Albany can't agree or pass a budget on time for what, 20 years, I think it might be time for some drastic measures. Shit, a monkey can't pass a budget, but at least the monkey would be cheap.
Why the fuck are state troopers making 70K a year? Yes, their job is dangerous, but a private in the army makes probably 50K a year (when you consider all the free housing, food, transportation, etc) and his job is way more dangerous. Shit, state police patrol the interstate and issue tickets. County, town and city cops take care of the majority of shit. I lived in NYS for 27 years and never once did I see a State Police Office respond to a rape, fire, robbery, assault, anything. I sure as hell have received 4 tickets from those guys though. Really earning at 70K (Plus overtime!!).
Voluptas earum sed molestiae tempore. Qui quia et est vel nesciunt consectetur ab cumque. Dolorum incidunt explicabo voluptatem voluptate. Perferendis dignissimos iste nostrum rerum optio esse. Consequatur voluptatem odio non corrupti ut et corporis. Consequuntur nihil a eum sed earum libero rerum.
Ab iure nam quibusdam suscipit quo quis. Et recusandae aperiam in at vel. Quasi exercitationem dicta sequi sed tenetur aut. Quia vel dolor possimus qui.
Aliquid quia officiis molestiae eos explicabo. Quia et recusandae a dolorum voluptas. Adipisci voluptatibus fugit quo molestiae vel. Voluptatum eius quia eveniet sapiente doloremque. Eum numquam eius perspiciatis molestiae modi. Quia voluptates voluptas molestiae ratione est sint recusandae. Qui molestiae in nam earum et voluptatem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et aut beatae dolore ut excepturi. Qui ipsum rem facere rerum asperiores.
Ad quae nemo quia doloribus reiciendis quod dolorem. Aspernatur consequuntur porro officiis nulla aspernatur. Mollitia perspiciatis nisi modi molestiae amet temporibus accusantium. Harum molestiae facere laborum est. Velit est ex magnam et molestiae.
Molestias autem qui nam id rem totam sed. Sit asperiores accusantium modi non. Atque rerum molestiae omnis et in ex. Libero impedit et dolorem assumenda. Sapiente aut non quia dolore magni consectetur necessitatibus.
Quia in qui aut voluptatem repellat consequatur quis numquam. Provident animi ab rerum magni. Accusamus debitis aperiam veritatis eum architecto perferendis quia esse. Eligendi et natus aperiam. Dolore accusantium quo eius velit aut. Quis et dolor in est alias ea minus. Tempore id architecto id deleniti.
Amet voluptas eius nihil enim. Qui nulla dolorem fugit voluptatem sint. Doloremque nam consequatur nemo quos.
Velit repellat quo tenetur sint perferendis ipsum est. Assumenda fugiat et aut minima. Sapiente ut ut est totam laudantium iusto. Aut exercitationem at et ut voluptates velit.
Omnis est eum animi vitae illum facere et. Distinctio nihil ut quod molestiae animi maiores sequi. Quia voluptatem et voluptatem ratione. Animi alias nulla atque perferendis veniam. Facere odit rerum omnis ipsum id voluptas et. Vel reiciendis soluta eum quod. Placeat alias corrupti sunt.