Erm, 56% of households have over $100k in assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Considering that Hazir wants to use this money to pay for all government expenditures, I doubt he'd have enough left to be super generous to orphans.
Printable View
Erm, 56% of households have over $100k in assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Considering that Hazir wants to use this money to pay for all government expenditures, I doubt he'd have enough left to be super generous to orphans.
Yes and what I'm asking is, what percentage of 10-year-old orphans come from those semi-wealthy debt-free households. Not as a crotch-punch mind you, just curious as to how relevant this is to reality where most people aren't 10 year old orphans but rather middle class middle-aged/senior "orphans" with established lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do we have any particular reason to believe that poor 10-year-olds are significantly more likely to lose their parents than rich 10-year-olds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Hazir's position. He's basically destroying the family as a social unit, as he's trying to destroy any benefit one has from being brought up by their parents. The only incentive Hazir creates is for people to stop working the second they make enough money to live for themselves.
Poorer physical and mental health, risk-factors such as smoking, drinking, drug-use, more likely to come from a single-parent household and thus have only one parent to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Btw, the passage you quoted referred specifically to households with a head over the age of 45.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. At the same time, no-one can know for sure before retirement exactly how much money they'll need or want in the decades after retirement. Moreover, there's nothing stopping them from sneaking their 18-year-old kids some cash or macbooks and tents.Quote:
And I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Hazir's position. He's basically destroying the family as a social unit, as he's trying to destroy any benefit one has from being brought up by their parents. The only incentive Hazir creates is for people to stop working the second they make enough money to live for themselves.
alas, there are people for whom money matters a little too much. See link in previous page :( may be in our best interest to keep things as they are :o
Hahahaha...wait, you're serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So we would really never own anything, just borrowing it (and growing it through our labor) from the state...and then leave nothing behind?
Isn't that how the Church consolidated power and land by forbidding priests to marry, thus no heirs?
Brilliant.
I don't think people will tolerate Hazir's idea, and I don't think we should as a society. If people work to own certain items, I don't see why they can't pass them on to their kids.
It does solve some problems of people starting on a equal footing etc... There are also loop holes even if it was the rule, what if I buy my kid a house for her birthday, and a bunch of diamonds for Christmas. Then when I die sure my stuff goes to the state, but my children still get a bunch of money. Are we going to ban presents, or monitor suchs gifts? nonperishable/resellable gifts can't exceed a certain value. It's an interesting idea just don't much like it.
No. Capital gains are 'profits realized after selling a stock', and it's based on purchase vs sale price. Higher rates for short term holdings (I think it still means holding a stock less than two years?) and long term. Traders and speculators that buy and sell at high frequency speeds, and often never "hold" a stock for more than a minute before they sell it, apparently have another rate, or use a loophole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Not just efficiently, but "equitably". That's why our income tax code has traditionally been "progressive", and why a flat tax has opponents. 15% of $30,000 in labor income is vastly different in nature than 15% of $3,000,000 in investment income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
This isn't just about Romney, but our whole tax code. He just has the good fortune to be able to pay for high-priced accountants and tax attorneys, whose sole job is to find best ways for clients like him to avoid paying taxes on ANY income. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Romney was also to Financial Consultant as "investment" instead of "labor/work", and get a lower tax rate. I think it's a carried-trade type of thing, whether they get a % of clients' profits, or an annual % of their portfolio valuation.
If he was never on the 'payroll', he also never paid those taxes that fund SS, Medicare and Medicaid. It's perfectly legal, and 'Wall Street' does it all the time, by hiring/paying "consultants and advisors" whose work isn't taxed as labor. People who actually labor for their wages actually pay more income taxes than those who use money to make money. That's what's fucked up.
All this outrage is nice but how many companies actually pay the statutory corporate income tax? About as many as there are people who pay federal income tax?