Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 216
  1. #121
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Medicare levy is 1.5%, whcih means effective rate is 46.5%
    Which as you and I know, but apparently not Pax, affects how people consider how worthwhile earning extra money really is. Governments confiscating almost half this extra money is a great deterrent to this extra economic activity. Pax has evidently ignored the posts about the Laffer Curve.
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Anyhow, where is the good accountant? If you show me one that helps me pay lower rate without some dubious schemes where I actually lose money, I'll pay you a commision.
    Indeed, that's one good reason to prefer a low flat rate of tax in return for abolishing negative gearing: less incentive to try financially dubious schemes to "save tax".
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  2. #122
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,237
    I am may be able to assist by rectifying some (unintended) misinformation from both sides. Other information is posted here for clarity for the independent reader.

    A person earning exactly $200,000 p.a. will pay exactly*:

    -- a total of $72,644 tax p.a.
    -- which is an effective tax rate of 36.32% (including the Medicare levy)
    -- which incorporates a calculation using the top marginal tax rate (of 46.5% including the Medicare levy) for every gross dollar earned over $2,566 per week (or once gross earnings reach $133,432 p.a.).
    * based on claiming the tax-free threshold with no leave loading

    I am assuming all parties recognise that some people are entitled to earn this amount, and therefore the gross earning is not an issue for discussion here.

    Tax deductions for 'high earning' PAYG employees are not as easy to come by as one may think. Not only is the scrutiny high, but the ramifications for false claims are considerable. Even ambit claims which are rejected incur greater follow-up scrutiny. While (attempted) rorting exists, it is certainly not commonplace.

    Which leaves us with the appropriateness of indirect deductions/ breaks/ gearings on investments.

    Thank you for your attention, everybody carry on!
    Last edited by Basil; 19-07-2007 at 06:42 PM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  3. #123
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    No I don't, and I haven't revealed my own income because it's none of your business.
    Just a general question: why is income such a private thing?
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  4. #124
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Which as you and I know, but apparently not Pax, affects how people consider how worthwhile earning extra money really is. Governments confiscating almost half this extra money is a great deterrent to this extra economic activity. Pax has evidently ignored the posts about the Laffer Curve.
    You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more. Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money? Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..

  5. #125
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,535
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more. Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money? Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..
    FYI, I have a friend who used to work one night as a taxi driver to supplement his salary, which pushed him over top tax bracket.
    And yes, people earning $150,000 might want to do some extra work and might even dare to hope to earn something in return.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  6. #126
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more.
    Not at all. In America, the tax cuts by Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and GWB were very good for the economy. As I've tried to explain to the assorted lefties, what can be cut or increased is tax rate, and these presidents increased the total tax revenue by cutting the rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money?
    Maybe if they want to send their kids through college, or have to pay some shyster lawyer's fees.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..
    How about people accepting a promotion that leads to some longer hours and greater responsibility?

    Meanwhile, if the taxes are too punitive, either less productive economic work will be done, or they will find tax shelters overseas. Look at the leading sportsmen like Björn Borg and Ulf Andersson who life away from their native Sweden.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  7. #127
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Just a general question: why is income such a private thing?
    Private all together or or not willing to publish on a BB?
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  8. #128
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683

    Multinationals help alleviate third-world poverty, unlike socialism

    Allister Heath defended the much-maligned multinationals in “The gift of work is best of all”, The Australian , 19 December 2006. Yet so many leftists denounce maultinationals in favour of foreign "aid" or socialism, even though socialism has totally wrecked the economy of Zimbabwe, once the 'breadbasket of Africa", and caused famines in the Ukraine, the former "breadbasket of Europe".

    [T]he stark reality is that the remarkable alleviation of poverty witnessed in recent years in Asian countries such as India and China has nothing to do with handouts and everything to do with governments embracing the institutions of capitalism. The only way sub-Saharan Africa will be able to feed and clothe its people is if African politicians follow suit, and that is where multinationals, the foot soldiers of the market economy, come in.

    The widespread view, even among those who should know better, is that multinationals exploit workers in poor countries by paying them extremely low wages and keeping them in sweatshop conditions, then make a bundle by selling the goods they make at huge profit margins in the West.

    A related argument is that multinationals regularly violate the human rights of their poorest workers and perpetuate the disgrace that is child labour. But the truth, as is so often the case, is the opposite.

    …Far from exploiting the rock-bottom wage rates generally paid in the poorest countries, multinationals tend to pay well above the going rate in the areas in which they are located.
    In the case of US multinationals, pay is 40 per cent to 100 per cent above local wages. No wonder locals queue up to get a job whenever a multinational opens its doors in a poor country: wages that may look miserable to us allow their recipients in Burma or Bangladesh to live in relative comfort.

    Working conditions in factories owned and operated by multinationals are invariably superior to those of their local competitors. Western firms also know better than to employ child labour, if only to protect themselves from adverse publicity back home. Multinationals help to transfer capital, resources, skills and technical know-how across borders. Workers trained by global companies are invariably more productive than those in local firms, and when the workers move on they take their knowledge with them, helping to spread better working practices, increased productivity and higher living standards.

    It is also wrong to believe that multinationals make huge profits from factories in Asia or Latin America. Competition is such that producing manufactured goods to export to the West is a low-margin business. After wages, raw material costs and transport are taken into account, there is little left.

    The case of Vietnam is especially instructive. Workers fortunate enough to work for multinationals there enjoy a standard of living that is twice as high as that of the rest of the population.
    In a paper debunking the sweatshop myth, Paul Glewwe, a leading development economist, revealed that the average wage-earner in Vietnam earned US23c an hour, but workers in foreign-owned businesses fared far better, making an average of US42c an hour [Are Foreign-Owned Businesses in Viet Nam Really Sweatshops?, University of Minnesota Extension Service Newsletter 701, Summer, 2000]. When Glewwe conducted his work, 15 per cent of Vietnamese were classified as very poor and 37 per cent as poor. But nobody working for multinationals was classified as very poor and only about 8 per cent were poor, proving that working for a foreign company is the best way to escape poverty and deprivation. Foreign employers drive wealth creation, pushing up everybody's wages.

    The presence of multinationals in Vietnam also disproportionately benefits women and the young, two groups that are usually marginalised in poor countries. Two-thirds of workers in foreign-owned businesses in Vietnam are women, and nearly two-thirds are in their 20s, confirming that globalisation is driving social change and female emancipation.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  9. #129
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683

    African economist pleads: Stop foreign "aid"

    As Kenyan economics expert, James Shikwati, explains, foreign aid to Africa “does more harm than good.” Shikwati’s plea to western governments and aid organisations is “…for God's sake, please just stop!” [“For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Der Spiegel, 4 July 2005] He continues:
    Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor…Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
    Shikwati adds:
    When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program—which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa…and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.
    In relation to the AIDS ‘epidemic,’ Shikwati observes:
    AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical…Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: “The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.”
    With respect to material assistance from western countries, Shikwati asks:
    Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livelihoods. They’re in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide. It would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

    [Cited in Andrew Kulikovsky's paper]
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 23-07-2007 at 02:11 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  10. #130
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683

    How Estonia became an economic powerhouse

    Communism killed the economies under its control. But after the fall of the evil Empire, one of its victims, Estonia, the birthplace of great chessplayers like Paul Keres and Ortvin Sarapu, rose to economic prosperity. It ranks 12th in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, ahead of Japan and Germany.

    Their post-communist leaders instituted real reforms, including the vital private ownership of property, deregulating the economy, a flat tax on income, and abolishing subsidies and tariffs. They also refused foreign 'aid' and loans from the World Bank and the IMF, because they would perpetuate dependency, and instead encouraged foreign investment and trade. Mart Laar, Estonian Prime Minister 1992 to 1994 and 1999 to 2002, explains more in The Estonian Economic Miracle.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 10-08-2007 at 02:45 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  11. #131
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

    I score 100 socially and 100 economically. I don't usually get perfect scores in tests!
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  12. #132
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,147
    I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular.

    I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".

    But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about) so I don't regard a reading based on small sample size as very meaningful.

    It's interesting that their stats for people taking the test show so many scoring "libertarian" when libertarians are actually not a very large portion of political society even in the USA. This could reflect defects in their testing or it may confirm the view that libertarians, while not that common, are very net-active. There used to be a jokey maxim on USENET that the ultimate subject of every USENET discussion was libertarianism, and it often seems to be that way in the non-chess section here too.

  13. #133
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".
    Every time I think such a talent is beyond help and teetering on the precipice, my faith all things good is restored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about)
    Card. Good. Associated issues. Of Course. Nevertheless. Card. Good. Axiom. I don't want any of your dribble. Mods. If it surfaces. Kill it.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  14. #134
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    Every time I think such a talent is beyond help and teetering on the precipice,
    You seem rather prone to think that on the basis of specific single issues, ignoring the broader picture of my almost-all-over-the-place political thought.

    If I add 100 words of greenie-baiting to every otherwise leftist post I make, will it help?

  15. #135
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular.

    I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".

    But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about) so I don't regard a reading based on small sample size as very meaningful.

    It's interesting that their stats for people taking the test show so many scoring "libertarian" when libertarians are actually not a very large portion of political society even in the USA. This could reflect defects in their testing or it may confirm the view that libertarians, while not that common, are very net-active. There used to be a jokey maxim on USENET that the ultimate subject of every USENET discussion was libertarianism, and it often seems to be that way in the non-chess section here too.
    I think it's probably engineered to create answers in their favour. They actually change the questions a lot.. For instance I have a card here that asks if you support government handouts for businesses, however when I did the test a while back it actually asked about government handouts in general which of course would receive different answers by some.

    I wouldn't recommend that test to someone trying to find political direction but I just wanted to throw in the perfect score gag
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •