Diane Fienstein wastes no time...

[Jamie6.5]

Uh, your bugaboo socialist countries, Sweden and Norway, have GDP per capita higher than the US.

Good thing!
Dayum good thing:
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Sweden

Indexes Difference Info
Consumer Prices in Sweden are 30.73% higher than in United States

Consumer Prices Including Rent in Sweden are 18.05% higher than in United States

Rent Prices in Sweden are 11.88% lower than in United States

Restaurant Prices in Sweden are 51.55% higher than in United States

Groceries Prices in Sweden are 22.64% higher than in United States

Local Purchasing Power in Sweden is 16.42% lower than in United States

Of course it couldn't possibly have anything to do with their tax structure,....
Nah, just couldn't.


Now sit down and calculate how much less of all that you could afford if you paid a 57.7% tax rate, instead of what you paid last year.
Sound good?

Not to me it doesn't!

Oh, and Oslo Norway vs PDX?
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...country2=Norway&city1=Portland,+OR&city2=Oslo

Consumer Prices in Oslo are 106.62% higher than in Portland, OR

Consumer Prices Including Rent in Oslo are 103.21% higher than in Portland, OR

Rent Prices in Oslo are 95.47% higher than in Portland, OR

Restaurant Prices in Oslo are 136.43% higher than in Portland, OR

Groceries Prices in Oslo are 108.00% higher than in Portland, OR

Good freakin' luck w/THAT!

 

[cueball1214]

Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass them on in the form of price increases.

Corporate taxes are part of overhead. As such, they get factored in to the price of the corporation's goods and services. They are treated the same as the electric bill, shipping costs, property taxes, maintenance charges, equipment upgrades, fuel costs etc. on the balance sheet.

This is a universal principle. Those that fail to recognize it, fail in business.

So when a Swede buys domestic goods, the taxes levied on the supplier are passed on to their customer.
Then if their goods are a VAT taxable item, the customer/consumer pays that too.

Go ahead and stack them.
It's accurate.
That's why the website I linked has them in their calculations.

Of the $30K you spent on domestic goods, you only actually purchased $26,844 worth of goods. The rest went to taxes on profits the producer paid with your purchases.

But hey, maybe in your socialist utopia, you have figured out how to do away with all that, and everything will be free.

Take a look at Denny's and Papa Johns, The new Obama tax has forced Papa johns to cut hours its ether that or lay off everyone and go out of business. Denny's will have a Obama Care charge to every meal. Nothing is free. The more government comes down on companies to pay more, the more it ends up hurting their workers ether by hour cuts, wage cuts or lay offs. Corporations do not have unlimited amounts of money. They have investors, people that have taken their money and invested it into a company in hopes of getting a sucsessfull return. If that dose not happen, then the investors take their money somewhere else.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Good thing!
Dayum good thing:
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Sweden



Of course it couldn't possibly have anything to do with their tax structure,....
Nah, just couldn't.

One thing to keep in mind is even if your pay 50% more for every thing you are still better off if you make 100% more money. The only reason the US scores as high in average income is because the average includes the vastly wealthy and income by corporations that are then put in very few pockets or shipped overseas. Most countries do not have the vast differences in wealth this country has. In very few countries do so few control so much as the rule. Those higher tax rates contribute to that reality.

Example: A recent study said the average pay for a cashier at a retail store in the US is $11 and hour. The average wage for the same position in Australia was $21 an hour.

 

[AlphaCoyote]

Good thing!
Dayum good thing:
Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Sweden



Of course it couldn't possibly have anything to do with their tax structure,....
Nah, just couldn't.


Now sit down and calculate how much less of all that you could afford if you paid a 57.7% tax rate, instead of what you paid last year.
Sound good?

Not to me it doesn't!

Oh, and Oslo Norway vs PDX?
Cost of Living Comparison Between Portland, OR, United States And Oslo, Norway


Good freakin' luck w/THAT!

Yes, national wealth and expenses go hand in hand. You want to be poor and have things cheap? Try Ivory Coast. You can get a thatched hut with no plumbing for $25 per month. And AKs go for $50 in the market. You'll love it. Send me a post card.

The point is this: Norway and Sweden, both "socialist" countries, are richer than we are, despite having higher tax burdens.

Oh, and a girl like you can have missing front teeth replaced in either country (actually most civilized countries) under the prepaid plan that covers all citizens.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Of the $30K you spent on domestic goods, you only actually purchased $26,844 worth of goods. The rest went to taxes on profits the producer paid with your purchases.

But hey, maybe in your socialist utopia, you have figured out how to do away with all that, and everything will be free.

Confused with your math here again. $30,000-$26,844 = $3,156. That means the tax rate being passed on is 10.52% (so who is paying that 15.78% to make that whole 26.3% you state). That is gotten from dividing 3,156/30,000 = 0.1052 or 10.52%.

Once again, stacking a consumption tax assumes you will be spending everything you have. In Sweden, the VAT is 12% on food stuffs, and 8% on restraunts and hotels (tourism basically). More importantly, you when you are adding in that consumption tax or the VAT you can't spend more than you have, so there is no way to exceed 100%. It is like dividing by 0, it simply can't be done.

What I am saying is that the people sitting at the top need to realize that they can not survive by hoarding everything away and treating everyone else as indentured servants. The filthy rich can remain filthy rich, but they could afford to pay people more than they do in a lot of companies. I am lucky I have a decent job, but I am still underemployed, but I have a great boss. There are several people though who aren't as lucky as I am, they lot their job, so some CEO or Director could pad their pockets at the cost of their job. That is the problem. You seem to think I am all about ripping things away from the ultra rich, I am not. Socialism and Communism both are doomed to fail, because of retards that try to make 2+2 = 5 when it is 4. Ideally Socialism is perfect, the thing that flaws it is humans, especially those with a strong sense of Super Ego. Democracies always devolve into a communistic style of government in the end though because when you let everyone vote, regardless of intellect or awareness of issues, they will always vote for who they perceive to get the most benefit from. Greed needs to be punished though.

Also to note, I had a college instructor who always would tell us, "Figures never lie, but liars always figure".

 

[Kelzebubba]

Take a look at Denny's and Papa Johns, The new Obama tax has forced Papa johns to cut hours its ether that or lay off everyone and go out of business. Denny's will have a Obama Care charge to every meal. Nothing is free. The more government comes down on companies to pay more, the more it ends up hurting their workers ether by hour cuts, wage cuts or lay offs. Corporations do not have unlimited amounts of money. They have investors, people that have taken their money and invested it into a company in hopes of getting a sucsessfull return. If that dose not happen, then the investors take their money somewhere else.

I did take a look at that. These are publicly traded companies. Meaning they answer to shareholders and investors. These people "financed" the company to a point, but they want profits, and they want more money than the year before every year. So if something dips into their "percieved" profits, they force CEOs to cheerlead for them like Denny's and Papa Johns. Which I hate to tell you are mostly franchised and mostly staffed with part time employees aside from the management teams. Privately held companies will suffer, but not as much. Once again, GREED is the key word here.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I did take a look at that. These are publicly traded companies. Meaning they answer to shareholders and investors. These people "financed" the company to a point, but they want profits, and they want more money than the year before every year. So if something dips into their "percieved" profits, they force CEOs to cheerlead for them like Denny's and Papa Johns. Which I hate to tell you are mostly franchised and mostly staffed with part time employees aside from the management teams. Privately held companies will suffer, but not as much. Once again, GREED is the key word here.

Exactly, the biggest issue with corporate finances these days is there is an elite group that feel entitled to specific amount of the profits regardless of current earnings. When there isn't enough money to pay them their "deserved" share they blame those below them, take their money, and let the company flounder. Just look at Hostess. While they were complaining about employees pay the executives were tripling their own salaries the very same years.

 

[Kelzebubba]

Exactly, the biggest issue with corporate finances these days is there is an elite group that feel entitled to specific amount of the profits regardless of current earnings. When there isn't enough money to pay them their "deserved" share they blame those below them, take their money, and let the company flounder. Just look at Hostess. While they were complaining about employees pay the executives were tripling their own salaries the very same years.

Much like our own government. They run everything down to the ground, but give themselves an escape route that secures their futures at the expense of those below them. You know if the CEO of Papa John's or any other company said "You know what, I am giving up my 1-5 million dollar bonus to save X amount of jobs this year, because I love my employees, they are the reason I am here today" I would put my application in to work for that company post haste. The problem is, they don't want to help others, they only want to help themselves.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Much like our own government. They run everything down to the ground, but give themselves an escape route that secures their futures at the expense of those below them. You know if the CEO of Papa John's or any other company said "You know what, I am giving up my 1-5 million dollar bonus to save X amount of jobs this year, because I love my employees, they are the reason I am here today" I would put my application in to work for that company post haste. The problem is, they don't want to help others, they only want to help themselves.

If a company did that I would throw my money at that company every chance I got. Instead they line their pockets and blame the workers. "Whaaa...these pensions are killing us! Waaa...the workers want too much of the profits. Waaa...I had o settle for a 50ft yacht instead of the 90ft one like Bill Gates has."

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

In fact, I vaguely remember several years ago a big business guy saying he was going to stop taking a salary or profits until business picked up. His multi-million dollar a year income saved hundreds of his workers and his company got back on it's feet. Granted he was already worth several hundred million when he did that so he basically just took a tiny paycut, but it was still a start.