NationStates Jolt Archive

First: I'm truly sorry for my grammar. It can make you want to quit before you are finished, but I would appreciate if you finish anyway.

Second: I can use only exempels from my own country (cause the lack of knoweldge)

Third: Everything here I truly beleive to be correct, but if you find errors (fact errors) please notify me. It's just a case that I have been misinformed. And I really like to know if I'm wrong about something. I'm pretty sure here is some
bad errors :eek:


Here is my problem. I'm no economist, but I don't beleive in taxcuts. Goverments
(at least here in finland) say taxcuts are essential to the the economy and
'using' them correctly will create more jobs. I can only speak for Finland, but I beleive this is the case elsewhare too. I have no proof of taxcuts making more
jobs available. Here in Finland was a great depression in the early 90's. After that our unemployment rate has been very high. it has been for some 8% ten years now. every elected goverment has promised to half the that number. None
has succeeded. Also I'm not sure that taxcuts have positive impact for the economy other ways either.

I know how taxcuts should/are said to work. They will create capital and boosts the economy creating jobs etc. As I mentioned Finland has used taxcuts for over 10 years to lower the unemployment rate. Nothing has happened.

Here is the problem as I see it. People in Finland pay two kind of taxes one for the goverment and one for the region (these are very small areas) but max amount
what we pay is goverment issued taxrate. regional taxrate is usually 17-20%
and goverment is 22 and higher. regional taxes are NOT progressive, but the other one is. so in order to pay great amounts of money to goverment via taxes you have to earn more money than 'poor' here do. So taxcuts primary
affect on middle and upper middle classes. (of cource the rich also, but they don't really exist here). So what happens when those people get more money
(sounds like I'm bitter, but I'm not :p ) They buy villas in Spain or import a nice car from Germany, seriously this happens alot.This doesn't boost the economy here in Finland. What would happen if 'poor' people( lower and lower middle class) would get more money. This could happen if we increase the goverments child support on 'poor', increase wealthware benefits and raised the minimium wage bar. The people from those classes would buy more everyday stuff (TV's, microwaves, cars from local shops etc), they would go more often to the movies and restaurants and use the barber more often. In short. They would boost the local economy. What effects would that have? I'm not sure,
but maybe the berber would have to employ another worker, maybe the restaurant would need another waitress and so on.



Here some information about people of finland
I don't remember these exactly, but correct me if I'm wrong.
About 70 % of finlanders are willing to INCREASE the taxrate if they knew for certanty that it would go to one of these 'programs'
'Programs' in order of popularity:
Heathcare (escpesially yound kids and eldelry need more attention)
Education
Social wealthware

Tax cuts is not the solution. It's TAX REFORM.
Fiddling with tax rates doesn't work but restructuring the tax system to make people more productive helps. Of course, greedy governments tend to reform tax systems to grab more tax ...

Well if there are tax cuts, the first thing you have to decide is where to cut them from. Everybody who gets govt money (police, schooling, hospitals etc) claim they are 'underfunded' so you have your first problem there. Especially with marching being so cliche these days, you annoy a few people and you wont be able to drive down the main streets for a weekend.

Damn, Regional Tax rates of 17-20% and then Federal rates of another 20%?!

40% of your income gone before you get to see it?

People in America complain when there effectual income tax rate (after deductions/etc) is over 20%. (including federal, state, and local)

Most economists agree that tax cuts provide a stimulus. The real reason may be that they provide flexibility: people who want to consume more can use their tax cut for that purpose; people who want to save more can use theirs to buy up the new government bonds. This is the perfect scenario during a recession, when prior over-investment has resulted in bloated inventory levels and poor private investment opportunities.

(A less rosy way to put it: tax cuts are really a sneaky way to increase consumers' credit lines. If you spend your tax cut you are in fact spending borrowed money, lent to you by the people who bought the bonds. You'll pay the lenders back later, with interest, in the form of future taxes.)

The real question isn't whether tax cuts work... it's about where to put the tax cut (sorry, I'll have to use American figures here):

This group... Pays about...
The richest 5% 53% ($470 Billion) of the total income tax revenue
The next 20% 30% ($260 Billion)
The next 25% 13% ($120 Billion)
The bottom 50% 4% ($35 Billion)

Conservatives argue that the bulk of a tax cut should go to the wealthy since they carry such a disproportionate amount of the burden; besides, they're more likely to invest their tax cut instead of spending it, and investment is where economic growth comes from. Liberals counter that during a recession you need more consumption, not investment; and you can afford to give significant benefits to practically everybody just by jacking up the tax rate on the richest five percent.

If you've had multiple parties in office who haven't been able to significantly change the unemployment rate (sorry to say I'm not overly up to date with the happenings of your country) I'd question if any of those parties actually had differing policy.

Because of my personal opinion (and because I'm too lazy to research yoru country I could be dead wrong) on taxes I'd say that you've had a run of socialist liberals who continued to give tax cuts to lower income in an attempt to stimulate the economy in order to create jobs. While this does create short bursts of economic growth, in order to create sustained economic growth it must be profitable for the companies to invest in growth, not just individuals.

You have to remember, giving tax cuts to the lower income people means you're relying on the additional revenue they're pumping into companies to give the companies enough profit to higher more people and improve their business. However, each of those tax cuts to lower income people means that higher income people and corporations have to pay a larger burden of taxes and thus require more revenue.

If the lower income's additional spending doesn't offset the additional tax burden on the upper income you've managed to screw the economy up more than when you started.

an unpopular idea: i'd rather raise taxes to increase public services spending (tax cuts = bad)

reform on the other hand, is ok but it depends to what purpose. increasing the progressiveness of tax brackets = good

Thank you Eborp. Interesting indeed.

I'm not sure, but you may have misunderstood me.
(And by that I mean I wrote it wrong on my original post :eek: )

You first pay the regional taxes 17-20% and then the last by doing the math
22%-(17%) If you earn only little money (hence the 22%) and if you regional tax rate is 17%.

Sorry not to mention this on the original post!

an unpopular idea: i'd rather raise taxes to increase public services spending (tax cuts = bad)

reform on the other hand, is ok but it depends to what purpose. increasing the progressiveness of tax brackets = good


I would raise taxes too. And increase the amount of puplic services. That will hopefully create more jobs (due to a grown puplic sector). And 'poor' would earn more and raise the tax income because we have the progressive tax 'system'.

It is kind of like 'New Deal'

The entire taxation system in the US is in drastic need of a complete overhaul:

1. Convert income tax to a set percentage of all income from all sources, with no exemptions and no deductions for anything ... ever!

2. Create a minimum income level below which there would be a "negative income tax" designed to replace all other forms of welfare with an assured minimum "subsistance insurance."

3. Eliminate sales tax on everything except goods and services the people vote to gradually eliminate, such as cigarettes, products which pollute the environment, various sorts of illegal drugs, etc.

4. Place all funds for "special" programs, such as social security, in a seperate account from general revenues so they cannot be used for anything except the purpose(s) for which they were collected.

5. Institue substantial penalties ( up to and including life in prison! ) for such crimes as income tax evasion and fraud, misappropriation of government funds, such "white-collar crimes" as bribery, stock fraud, collusion in restraint of trade, theft of funds from retirement accounts, theft of funds from employer, etc.

6. Create an investigative arm of the Office of Budget and Management to detect, investigate and prosecute violations of all of the above, institute extensive psychological testing to make sure you got the very best and most honest people and then pay them substantially.

The likelihood of the above reforms ever being emplimented approaches zero as a limit, but doing so would radically alter the financial and monetary landscape of America.

I liked your ideas. expect for this one.




5. Institue substantial penalties ( up to and including life in prison! ) for such crimes as income tax evasion and fraud, misappropriation of government funds, such "white-collar crimes" as bribery, stock fraud, collusion in restraint of trade, theft of funds from retirement accounts, theft of funds from employer, etc.




What good this does??

The entire taxation system in the US is in drastic need of a complete overhaul:

1. Convert income tax to a set percentage of all income from all sources, with no exemptions and no deductions for anything ... ever!

2. Create a minimum income level below which there would be a "negative income tax" designed to replace all other forms of welfare with an assured minimum "subsistance insurance."
<snip>

Don't these two contradict each other? I may be misreading you, but #2 appears to be some form of progressive tax credit bringing recipients up to a minimum income. So you effectively have a different tax rate for this band of taxpayers.

If #2 works as stated, you destroy economic incentives for the unemployed or low paid to work more to increase their income. If that increase still leaves their pre-tax income below the mimimum, the negative tax brings them back to the minimum, which they would recieve anyway.

You might also want to manage the boundary between the minimum income and payment of the flat-percentage rate tax. Otherwise, people crossing that boundary could end up worse off for increasing their income, when they pay tax for the first time.

I liked your ideas. expect for this one. [ Penalties for white-collar crimes ]
What good this does??
People, being people, will always try to maximize their own income at the price of the income or benefits of others. To prevent as much of this as possible, so called "white-collar crimes" should have sufficient penalties attached to make those so inclined to think twice.

I liked your ideas. expect for this one.




What good this does??
It would reduce abuses of the system thereby maximising revenues, minimising leakages and generally improving equity and civic belonging.

Plus it's always satisfying when someone rich goes to jail for ripping off their fellow citizens.

Damn, Regional Tax rates of 17-20% and then Federal rates of another 20%?!

40% of your income gone before you get to see it?
Muahahahaaa!
You think that's all!!??
Ok, brace yourself, here comes;

As stated before, the municipality tax is between 15.5 and 21% (the average rate being 17.5%).


Then there's the state income tax , which can be either progressive or proportional.
*If the tax is determined in accordance with the progressive income tax scale, this means that an increase an income causes a proportionately greater increase in tax. Earned income (such as wages or pension and fringe benefits) is taxed in accordance with a progressive tax scale.
*Capital income and corporations are subject to a proportional tax rate. In 2005 the tax rate on capital income (for example capital gains) of individuals is 28 per cent (I don't really know enough about taxation of corporations).

Take a look at this Baby:
Tax (%) Tax Base (EUR)
0 1 - 12,500
10.5% 12,501- 15,400
15% 15,401- 20,500
20.5% 20,501 - 32,100
26.5% 32,101- 56,900
33.5% 56,901 And Over

That's the progressive table for state income tax. Preeety, isn't it?


Also wildly popular is the state wealth tax. In 2005 the minimum amount of assets subject to wealth tax is EUR 250. The rate of tax is EUR 80 for this amount and 0.8 % for the amount exceeding it.


JesusFreaks get to have fun with the Church tax. It is also a proportional apportionment tax. The church tax rates vary from 1 to 2.00 per cent. Church tax is only paid by the members of the Finnish Evangelic Lutheran and Orthodox Churches. Thank God.


Minor oddities: If the municipality has decided to levy a dog tax, the owners of dogs are liable to pay maximum tax of50 Euros per year (on each beast, I assume).


There are all kinds of healt insurance and other payments we get to pay too, but I think the abovementioned ones are sufficient to knock you out for awhile.


You name it, Finland taxes it!

You won't see Australians on the streets asking for tax increases for funding services as they don't trust the government to spend it wisely. Mind you they still voted for the only OECD government who increases taxes on the people other than Sweden.

People, being people, will always try to maximize their own income at the price of the income or benefits of others. To prevent as much of this as possible, so called "white-collar crimes" should have sufficient penalties attached to make those so inclined to think twice.


Yes, but there is no proof that harder punishments reduces crime, anywhere or anycase. Same goes for The White Hats

Muahahahaaa!
You think that's all!!??
Ok, brace yourself, here comes;

As stated before, the municipality tax is between 15.5 and 21% (the average rate being 17.5%).


Then there's the state income tax , which can be either progressive or proportional.
*If the tax is determined in accordance with the progressive income tax scale, this means that an increase an income causes a proportionately greater increase in tax. Earned income (such as wages or pension and fringe benefits) is taxed in accordance with a progressive tax scale.
*Capital income and corporations are subject to a proportional tax rate. In 2005 the tax rate on capital income (for example capital gains) of individuals is 28 per cent (I don't really know enough about taxation of corporations).

Take a look at this Baby:
Tax (%) Tax Base (EUR)
0 1 - 12,500
10.5% 12,501- 15,400
15% 15,401- 20,500
20.5% 20,501 - 32,100
26.5% 32,101- 56,900
33.5% 56,901 And Over

That's the progressive table for state income tax. Preeety, isn't it?


Also wildly popular is the state wealth tax. In 2005 the minimum amount of assets subject to wealth tax is EUR 250. The rate of tax is EUR 80 for this amount and 0.8 % for the amount exceeding it.


JesusFreaks get to have fun with the Church tax. It is also a proportional apportionment tax. The church tax rates vary from 1 to 2.00 per cent. Church tax is only paid by the members of the Finnish Evangelic Lutheran and Orthodox Churches. Thank God.


Minor oddities: If the municipality has decided to levy a dog tax, the owners of dogs are liable to pay maximum tax of50 Euros per year (on each beast, I assume).


There are all kinds of healt insurance and other payments we get to pay too, but I think the abovementioned ones are sufficient to knock you out for awhile.


You name it, Finland taxes it!


Thank you :) for clearing some stuff for me!

Don't these two contradict each other? I may be misreading you, but #2 appears to be some form of progressive tax credit bringing recipients up to a minimum income. So you effectively have a different tax rate for this band of taxpayers.

If #2 works as stated, you destroy economic incentives for the unemployed or low paid to work more to increase their income. If that increase still leaves their pre-tax income below the mimimum, the negative tax brings them back to the minimum, which they would recieve anyway.

You might also want to manage the boundary between the minimum income and payment of the flat-percentage rate tax. Otherwise, people crossing that boundary could end up worse off for increasing their income, when they pay tax for the first time.
The operant word in that suggestion is "subsistence." The key would be to keep the amount of money they recieve just high enough to avoid starvation. Most of those who draw some sort of welfare assistance now do so because of temporary circumstances. Few in their right minds would want to remain below the minimum for long. My personal concern is primarily children. Although we don't want to encourage people to have children simply because of additional income, the thought that there are children in the US who go to bed hungry drives me crazy.

Keep in mind that going to a "negative income tax" would virtually eliminate the huge "welfare bureaucracy" we have now. I suspect the savings would be substantial.

You Fins should look at Australia!

RESIDENTS: FINANCIAL YEAR 2004/05.
Annual Taxable Income............... Tax

$0 - $6000 .................. Nil

$6001 - $21600 ........... Nil plus 17c for each $ over $6000

$21601 - $58000.......... $2652 plus 30c for each $ over $21600

$58001 - $70000.......... $13572 plus 42c for each $ over $58000

$70001 and over ......... $18612 plus 47c for each $ over $70000.

Residents pay tax on Australian and overseas income.

In addition, above about $13000 there is a Medicare levy of 1.5 cents of taxable income.

Also single taxpayers with taxable income over $50,000 and families with taxable income over $100,000 are required to pay the Medicare surcharge of 1% of taxable income if they do not have approved private Hospital Insurance.

Thank you :) for clearing some stuff for me!
Don't mention it. I came off like I enjoyed paying taxes, didn't I? Oh well, I'm heavily sedated...

You Fins should look at Australia!Oh, believe me, we are! We are constantly looking for new ways to increase our tax burden.

Oh, believe me, we are! We are constantly looking for new ways to increase our tax burden.

Ask for an interest rate increase :)

Don't mention it. I came off like I enjoyed paying taxes, didn't I? Oh well, I'm heavily sedated...

I Know you enjoy paying taxes :D

I Know you enjoy paying taxes :D
Well I don't really know anyone who likes to pay taxes. In all fairness though, the state could do much worse spending the money we pay. Somehow we can pull it off. Must be 'cause there is only 5 million of us. Any more, and there would be a rebellion. :)

(Interesting location you have there... compared to mine. Hick)

Well I don't really know anyone who likes to pay taxes. In all fairness though, the state could do much worse spending the money we pay. Somehow we can pull it off. Must be 'cause there is only 5 million of us. Any more, and there would be a rebellion. :)

(Interesting location you have there... compared to mine. Hick)


I was joking, but to more serious stuff...

I agree we (goverment) spend our tax money poorly, but also due to our high
tax revenues (income?) we have one of the best countries in the world.
This old and known stuff, but remember the pisa study!

Yes, but there is no proof that harder punishments reduces crime, anywhere or anycase. Same goes for The White Hats
I disagree. The key factor here is that the crimes are economic ones, not generally crimes of passion or to fund dysfunctioning lifestyles. To that extent they are rational, and if those committing them judge the likely costs (through being caught) outweigh the likely benefits, they will cease and desist.

This model has actually been applied by the UK government to the economic crime of smuggling excise goods (alcohol, tobacco &c) across their frontier. And with some success; the problem had been increasing exponentially in the late nineties, driven by differential tax rates. They applied the model and brought the problem under control, without decreasing the tax differentials.

The operant word in that suggestion is "subsistence." The key would be to keep the amount of money they recieve just high enough to avoid starvation. Most of those who draw some sort of welfare assistance now do so because of temporary circumstances. Few in their right minds would want to remain below the minimum for long. My personal concern is primarily children. Although we don't want to encourage people to have children simply because of additional income, the thought that there are children in the US who go to bed hungry drives me crazy.

Keep in mind that going to a "negative income tax" would virtually eliminate the huge "welfare bureaucracy" we have now. I suspect the savings would be substantial.
I'll have to defer to your detailed knowledge of the US welfare system here, but I suspect the bureaucratic problem is less to do with the mechanics of welfare payment than it is to do with the identification of individuals' needs. Whether payment is made via a benefit or via a tax credit/refund should make little difference to how much that payment costs to administer.

However, the problem you want to avoid is that of the deserving (children, I assume elderly and invalids also) facing undue hardship. Identifying those cases and their individual needs is usually where the major costs of welfare systems are incurred, and that would need to be done whether tax or benefits are the means of delivering the welfare/insurance payouts.

The flipside of this is ensuring that the undeserving don't get the welfare/tax credits. Administering this is also very resource intensive even for a tax system because you need to police a very large number of individual households. In general, you can't even apply the ocasional, heavy interventions you suggest for larger scale frauds, because the lower income populations are less able to percieve that risk on a rational basis.

I was joking, but to more serious stuff...

I agree we (goverment) spend our tax money poorly, but also due to our high
tax revenues (income?) we have one of the best countries in the world.
This old and known stuff, but remember the pisa study!
Well, that's what I was saying: "could do much worse". The things you were complaining in your first post about are - In my opinion - largely due to strong tendency to form coalition governments. It's hard to halve unemployment when you have left and right wing parties taking care of it together. Coalitions reduce the willingness to take drastic measures. Also, the taxation doesn't encourage entrepreneurship. Still, for some reason Finland seems to be number one in global competitiveness survey again. Go figure.

I disagree. The key factor here is that the crimes are economic ones, not generally crimes of passion or to fund dysfunctioning lifestyles. To that extent they are rational, and if those committing them judge the likely costs (through being caught) outweigh the likely benefits, they will cease and desist.

This model has actually been applied by the UK government to the economic crime of smuggling excise goods (alcohol, tobacco &c) across their frontier. And with some success; the problem had been increasing exponentially in the late nineties, driven by differential tax rates. They applied the model and brought the problem under control, without decreasing the tax differentials.


I disagree. I beleive money is the ultimate motiv. But this is not the discussion
I wanted so let's just say we disagree...

I disagree. I beleive money is the ultimate motiv. But this is not the discussion
I wanted so let's just say we disagree...
If you're saying money is the ultimate motivation, we're agreeing.

Well, that's what I was saying: "could do much worse". The things you were complaining in your first post about are - In my opinion - largely due to strong tendency to form coalition governments. It's hard to halve unemployment when you have left and right wing parties taking care of it together. Coalitions reduce the willingness to take drastic measures. Also, the taxation doesn't encourage entrepreneurship. Still, for some reason Finland seems to be number one in global competitiveness survey again. Go figure.


Sorry, I misunderstood you.
You are right about left and right wing parties taking care of business togethet
doesn't work. If you add the fact that SDP is really a right wing party... what do we get???

Education is my answer to your last quoestion... Don't know for sure though

If you're saying money is the ultimate motivation, we're agreeing.


We are??? I should learn how to read??

We are??? I should learn how to read??
Probably I didn't make myself clear. White collar fraud and major tax evasion &c are economic crimes - they're done for monetary benefit, not (generally) through necessity or mental disturbance. They can therefore be countered by rational, economic means, whether meaningful financial penalties or disbenefits applied through, eg, prison sentances. The risk of detection and conviction also become much more relevant in economic crimes. You need to remove the likelihood of financial gain.

The UK government's successful application of this principle against revenue smuggling is a case study for this. It's probably also the principle behind the USA's IRS tax enforcement policy, which I understand to be more or less succesful.

Is that clearer?

Probably I didn't make myself clear. White collar fraud and major tax evasion &c are economic crimes - they're done for monetary benefit, not (generally) through necessity or mental disturbance. They can therefore be countered by rational, economic means, whether meaningful financial penalties or disbenefits applied through, eg, prison sentances. The risk of detection and conviction also become much more relevant in economic crimes. You need to remove the likelihood of financial gain.

The UK government's successful application of this principle against revenue smuggling is a case study for this. It's probably also the principle behind the USA's IRS tax enforcement policy, which I understand to be more or less succesful.

Is that clearer?


Very much so... Thanks.
I wasn't were of that Uk thing. Interesting.

Very much so... Thanks.
I wasn't were of that Uk thing. Interesting.
They kept relatively quiet about it - political reasons to do with the defence of the tax and duty rates.

They kept relatively quiet about it - political reasons to do with the defence of the tax and duty rates.


Makes sence... I guess

I would raise taxes too. And increase the amount of puplic services. That will hopefully create more jobs (due to a grown puplic sector). And 'poor' would earn more and raise the tax income because we have the progressive tax 'system'.

It is kind of like 'New Deal'


It is often stated that the new deal delayed economic recovery in the US. :eek: See also: http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3421&printable=Y

If everyone is working for the govt, who pays taxes? The trick is to get people to invest their money in their nation, so that more people feel comfortable spending their money. Yes, at the fuel station, or at their barber, or at restaurants, or for a car made in their nation, or for a new factory or industry to build cars in their nation,... there are scales of spending money. :gundge:

But consider what money truly is. Money is compensation for our work, or effort, or creativity. It is earned. Therefore, income taxes are a form of slavery. If we are allowed to work only if we pay for the privilage, what message does that send to the workers? Work harder, so the govt gets more of our income? :headbang:

This is why there is a growing demand for a national sales tax to replace our income tax. That way people are encouraged to save money, because taxes are only taken when we CHOOSE to SPEND money. There is a profound moral difference.

In the US, the federal govt (nationwide) has been getting more and more involved in things that originally were designed to be left for state (regional) decisions. Unfortunately, the more govt tries to do, the more it does those things poorly. :mad:

Consider this example. If the govt provided cars for everyone to use, do you think those cars would be well designed? Do you think people would take care of their govt provided cars? Maybe some people think the cars aren't safe, or others think they are too slow, or others think the cars get horrible gas mileage (so we pay more in fuel taxes). Maybe people don't like the color of the car they are given. The point is, we currently have the ability to choose what we think is proper for us, by purchasing a car with the capabilities we can afford and prefer. ;)

Human nature is to look out for ourselves. Charity and caring about others is admirable and virtuous, but it is also voluntary. Using govt to force everyone to be charitable for the good of others, isn't charity, but corruption of power. :(

The best government governs little. :D

Pax mundi,
Dymaxion

It is often stated that the new deal delayed economic recovery in the US. :eek: See also: http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3421&printable=Y

If everyone is working for the govt, who pays taxes? The trick is to get people to invest their money in their nation, so that more people feel comfortable spending their money. Yes, at the fuel station, or at their barber, or at restaurants, or for a car made in their nation, or for a new factory or industry to build cars in their nation,... there are scales of spending money. :gundge:

But consider what money truly is. Money is compensation for our work, or effort, or creativity. It is earned. Therefore, income taxes are a form of slavery. If we are allowed to work only if we pay for the privilage, what message does that send to the workers? Work harder, so the govt gets more of our income? :headbang:

This is why there is a growing demand for a national sales tax to replace our income tax. That way people are encouraged to save money, because taxes are only taken when we CHOOSE to SPEND money. There is a profound moral difference.

In the US, the federal govt (nationwide) has been getting more and more involved in things that originally were designed to be left for state (regional) decisions. Unfortunately, the more govt tries to do, the more it does those things poorly. :mad:

Consider this example. If the govt provided cars for everyone to use, do you think those cars would be well designed? Do you think people would take care of their govt provided cars? Maybe some people think the cars aren't safe, or others think they are too slow, or others think the cars get horrible gas mileage (so we pay more in fuel taxes). Maybe people don't like the color of the car they are given. The point is, we currently have the ability to choose what we think is proper for us, by purchasing a car with the capabilities we can afford and prefer. ;)

Human nature is to look out for ourselves. Charity and caring about others is admirable and virtuous, but it is also voluntary. Using govt to force everyone to be charitable for the good of others, isn't charity, but corruption of power. :(

The best government governs little. :D

Pax mundi,
Dymaxion


Interesting point although I disagree...

1) New Deal may have slowed the economic recovery, but it also maid it more stabile(sp?) and I personally (well I'm young so...) think New Deal helped the
U.S economy.

2)People who work for govt. do pay taxes, at least in my country (I might have misunderstood you. I do that once in awhile [read earlier posts :D])

3)The more govt. gets from our work (your words) more it can do for our
sick and unfortunate... equal equality I think. Provided that it's done properly(sp?). (Again see earlier posts for better view of my opinion)

4)To your car example... At least everybody has a car... this goes for everything the govt. does with tax money...

It isn't taxation that's the problem, dudes. The problems are many, but the leaders of the pack are: the government often puts its fingers in places it doesn't belong; our politicians often sacrifice the good of the many for the special interests that keep them in office; and, while I am a staunch supporter of basic welfare, the current system is counterproductive and, in the end, only worsens the basic problems. Feel free to enumerate others for me, but my basic point is that the government tends to spend more money than it has to. If my taxes are going to support a good cause, hey, I'm all for it, but I don't like the idea of the government either flushing my money down the toilet or using it, via some loophole, to support corporate parasites that don't have any compunction with messing up people's lives just to line their own pockets. The government's also spending too much time pandering to the religious right-wing; I mean, fuck, even the Democrats are doing it to an extent, and all it's going to do is ruin everything.

I support a much fairer tax system where those who can afford it contribute more to society through very high taxes of at least 90% for the wealthiest people. I also support tax reductions for the poorest people who are always left with the highest burden while the capitalist exploiters get away with stealing all the wealth then find a way to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

I support a much fairer tax system where those who can afford it contribute more to society through very high taxes of at least 90% for the wealthiest people. I also support tax reductions for the poorest people who are always left with the highest burden while the capitalist exploiters get away with stealing all the wealth then find a way to avoid paying their fair share of tax.I think that's a bit much. Actually, I think that the government shouldn't tax people at all if they won't have enough leftover after expenses to invest in their retirement because they aren't gainers in this society. I say only tax incomes that allow for investment and comfortable retirement. If you want to have a flat tax above that mark, fiiiiiiine with me, though I think that flat taxes are much overrated.

I'll post this without reading the whole thread so I'm sorry if this has been disputed over and over again already. I'll start reading the thread after this...

IMO the biggest problem in Finland is that we don't have enough purchasing power. But cutting income taxes is not the solution. We should cut VAT's, especially on services. Goods and services are really expensive in Finland because of
a) there are only 5 000 000 Finns = small markets (think about extra costs in books, movies etc which importers have to translate into Finnish)
b) Finland is big, and empty. Goods have to travel very long distances, extra costs again
c) our climate isn't very "profitable", building, transportation, everything is a bit more expensive. All that cuts a slice off the money we could otherwise spend in goods or services. Climate is of course the biggest reason why we have to import almost all vegetables and fruits.

So IMO we should do exactly the opposite of what mr Bush wants to do in USA.

NIINI: Yes, the recent taxcuts in Finland have been quite pointless. If you don't live in Kauniainen or work as a consultant, you'll loose all the benefits with increasing regional taxes.

Well if there are tax cuts, the first thing you have to decide is where to cut them from. Everybody who gets govt money (police, schooling, hospitals etc) claim they are 'underfunded' so you have your first problem there. Especially with marching being so cliche these days, you annoy a few people and you wont be able to drive down the main streets for a weekend.
The problem is that quite many of those institutions are inefficient. I don't think that we should privatize them (after that the services are usually even more expensive) but there should be some major changes. Finnish Broadcasting Company is maybe the best example of how to waste taxpayers money.

Marching...hehe. Finns don't march. We just moan at home and quietly take all the crap.

Right. Now go read the whole thing. After that we can easily take this thread over!

Maybe we can tax the people reading this thread later... mmm

JesusFreaks get to have fun with the Church tax. It is also a proportional apportionment tax. The church tax rates vary from 1 to 2.00 per cent. Church tax is only paid by the members of the Finnish Evangelic Lutheran and Orthodox Churches. Thank God.

The worst thing is that not only people but also companies have to pay Chruch tax! And they just can't avoid it.

The worst thing is that not only people but also companies have to pay Chruch tax! And they just can't avoid it.
That's just to assure we don't have ungodly companies in Finland.

I disagree. The key factor here is that the crimes are economic ones, not generally crimes of passion or to fund dysfunctioning lifestyles. To that extent they are rational, and if those committing them judge the likely costs (through being caught) outweigh the likely benefits, they will cease and desist.

This model has actually been applied by the UK government to the economic crime of smuggling excise goods (alcohol, tobacco &c) across their frontier. And with some success; the problem had been increasing exponentially in the late nineties, driven by differential tax rates. They applied the model and brought the problem under control, without decreasing the tax differentials.
The problem with white-collar crimes (well, here) is not the small penalties but the fact that there are not enough police force (and knowledge) to investigate such crimes. They almost never get caught and they know it.

3)The more govt. gets from our work (your words) more it can do for our
sick and unfortunate... equal equality I think. Provided that it's done properly(sp?). (Again see earlier posts for better view of my opinion)


We Finns for some odd reason like the concept of solidarity. :rolleyes:
And as you say, still manage to be succesful (Pisa)

That's just to assure we don't have ungodly companies in Finland.
Oh my lord, what a terrible idea! Ungodly companies.

Anyway. Finns always complain about high taxation and give examples from other countries like healtcare is so much better in France and they don't even have to pay as much taxes for it! On the other hand childcare is insanely expensive in France (compared to Finland). So do French really have it any better? Maybe not.

And a bit more about VATs. Maybe 22% is alright for imported goods. What if the VAT would be smaller for goods manufactured in Finland. Of course that would be against EU regulations but are there any other reasons why it would be a bad idea?

Oh my lord, what a terrible idea! Ungodly companies.

Anyway. Finns always complain about high taxation and give examples from other countries like healtcare is so much better in France and they don't even have to pay as much taxes for it! On the other hand childcare is insanely expensive in France (compared to Finland). So do French really have it any better? Maybe not.

And a bit more about VATs. Maybe 22% is alright for imported goods. What if the VAT would be smaller for goods manufactured in Finland. Of course that would be against EU regulations but are there any other reasons why it would be a bad idea?
Well, They aren't ungodly cos they pay church tax, are they!?

I don't really know about healthcare in France, I've only lived in unreal places like Spain and Greece. Now, they must have taxes and stuff, but I couldn't tell cos I only lived for a year in each. The taxes really never caught with me(maybe I didn't earn enough to be taxed). And healthy piggy as I am...

I don't know if VAT reduce on domestic goods would do much good. I'm under the impression there is VAT payed on exported goods. Afterall, VAT is payed in all imaginable points the product meets in its route to a shop shelve...? So that would increase the price if a product comes from abroad (not to mention the taxes if it's coming outside of EU). I really wouldn't know.

I don't know if we are really helping Niini at all... speaking of Finland... but I'd imagine it would be hard comparing the tax system in USA to our domestic one. Oh well...

I don't know if VAT reduce on domestic goods would do much good. I'm under the impression there is VAT payed on exported goods. Afterall, VAT is payed in all imaginable points the product meets in its route to a shop shelve...? So that would increase the price if a product comes from abroad (not to mention the taxes if it's coming outside of EU). I really wouldn't know.


I haven't lived there either (or have any kids...) but I know few French who have moved to Finland.
I believe that you don't pay VAT (to Finland, the seller probably has included his country's VAT in the price) when you import something, you pay it when you sell it again. But of course that increases the price all the same.
Still further. IMO especially the VAT for groceries (17%) and services (22%) is too high. 12% for food and 15% for the services.

edit:
Toinen yrittäjä vähentää sen arvonlisäveron, jonka toinen on perinyt häneltä, jos tavara tai palvelu on tullut hänelle käytettäväksi arvonlisäverollisessa liiketoiminnassa.

Arvonlisäveroa suoritetaan Suomessa tapahtuvasta tavaran ja palvelun myynnistä sekä tavaran yhteisöhankinnasta ja maahantuonnista EU:n ulkopuolelta.

yes

Edit: juu :)

I quess I'll finally go away from this evil machine and enjoy some of the fruits of last years taxcuts. (=cheap beer)

Cheers!

You thought I'd do this sober!?!
Go have a blast though...

You thought I'd do this sober!?!
Go have a blast though...
You can never be too sure about humanistics ;)

I'm too old to go out on Friday nights :) For some reason I'm much more tired on Fridays than on any other weekday. But Saturday night...

The problem with white-collar crimes (well, here) is not the small penalties but the fact that there are not enough police force (and knowledge) to investigate such crimes. They almost never get caught and they know it.
Hence Eutrusca was arguing for a better equipped intervention force.

Oh my lord, what a terrible idea! Ungodly companies.

Anyway. Finns always complain about high taxation and give examples from other countries like healtcare is so much better in France and they don't even have to pay as much taxes for it! On the other hand childcare is insanely expensive in France (compared to Finland). So do French really have it any better? Maybe not.

And a bit more about VATs. Maybe 22% is alright for imported goods. What if the VAT would be smaller for goods manufactured in Finland. Of course that would be against EU regulations but are there any other reasons why it would be a bad idea?
I suspect it would probably also fall foul of World Trade rules.

I would raise taxes too. And increase the amount of puplic services. That will hopefully create more jobs (due to a grown puplic sector). And 'poor' would earn more and raise the tax income because we have the progressive tax 'system'.

It is kind of like 'New Deal'


This is a socialist ideolog that is long past its usefulness. Cutting taxes stimulates the economy. So what if people buy cars from Germany, buy homes in Spain. I thought the EU was one big happy family?

I don't know if VAT reduce on domestic goods would do much good. I'm under the impression there is VAT payed on exported goods. Afterall, VAT is payed in all imaginable points the product meets in its route to a shop shelve...? So that would increase the price if a product comes from abroad (not to mention the taxes if it's coming outside of EU). I really wouldn't know.

I don't know if we are really helping Niini at all... speaking of Finland... but I'd imagine it would be hard comparing the tax system in USA to our domestic one. Oh well...

You are helping me! So thank you all again. :)
VAT, well... I'm all for it(?). I think it should be even higher for cigarettes, gasoline and liquer. (And I'm a unemlpoyed student who enjoys those things as the next guy and don't have much money, but still we should increase VAT.

This is a socialist ideolog that is long past its usefulness. Cutting taxes stimulates the economy. So what if people buy cars from Germany, buy homes in Spain. I thought the EU was one big happy family?


That's just the thing... the money goes to some foreign company...
unless we(EU) are one big family... *Cold shivers*

Well tax cuts do help the economy; there's no doubt about it. The problem is to decide whether the government services that will have to be cut along with taxes are worth cutting.

Well tax cuts do help the economy; there's no doubt about it. The problem is to decide whether the government services that will have to be cut along with taxes are worth cutting.
That's right! I'd really miss all of the, er, um... I really couldn't do without the,,, umm. I hope they don't cut the... uuuh...

Yes, more tax cuts.

Tax the rich, not the poor. The rich don't use it anyway.

Tax the rich, not the poor. The rich don't use it anyway.
The rich don't use it?? Care to explain? I

A 'rich person' is a conveniently ambiguous term - according to the social security tax cap it is those earning over $85,000/year. I can only presume you mean THOSE rich people.

Tell me how they are not using it?

If fact, tell me how anyone with a substantial income or net worth could NOT use it.

Your answer should proove quite entertaining.