Author Topic: Financial Cliff in United States and impact on sales (Read 27122 times)

MetaStocker · « **Reply #25 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:40 »

Quote from: michaeldb on December 06, 2012, 14:17

Yes, and the VAT tax in particular makes selling new technology products more difficult. Hope the pro-high-tax people in the US never succeed in getting a VAT tax installed here. It's a real high tech innovation killer.

Most of nowadays american technology has been stolen from Germany after 1945.

As for VAT, just look at HongKong or Singapore where the VAT is 5% or less or even ZERO.

In europe is 20%, it's just crazy but people dont realize it, they take it for granted.

There can be no innovation in europe in fact, unless you're a mega-multi-corporation paying taxes in Luxembourg or Cayman Islands.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:42 »

I don't know anyone in the US who wants a VAT tax. It's very regressive and punishes spending, which is not what we need to get the economy going.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #27 on:** December 06, 2012, 15:49 »

Quote from: MetaStocker on December 06, 2012, 15:34

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 13:14
OTOH, Europeans have a social safety net. If you are unemployed or sick you are far less likely to end up homeless.

It depends on MANY factors and also by country, by region, and even by city.

Yes, if you're sick you can get a bed in a hospital, but otherwise you can pretty much end up under a bridge or begging for food in a church or other religious NGOs feeding the beggars, we've millions of homeless people, no matter if people outside europe think we've a happy welfare, it's BS, and it's BS even in scandinavia where taxation is up to 50%, see by yourself how many homeless you see in Stockholm alone.

You are 100% correct. I am born in Stockholm, live there and in London. Nowdays I have a farm in the country, Smaland. Its total BS, sweden is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. Yes the standard is high, etc. Nowdays there are countless homeless people and especially young people, sleeping under bridges, this and that.
Ofcourse, its not like NY or London but then again Stockholm has a populatiuon of only 1-5, million, so there is no excuse at all.

gostwyck · « **Reply #28 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:00 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 15:42

I don't know anyone in the US who wants a VAT tax. It's very regressive and punishes spending, which is not what we need to get the economy going.

You already have 'VAT' in the US. It's just that you call it 'sales tax' and it's controlled by individual states rather than Federally (and is a lot less than in most European countries). In the US property taxes are vastly higher than in Europe. Swings and roundabouts.

One of the good things about VAT is that it is difficult for the wealthy to avoid. They might be able to hire accountants for creative tax-avoidance schemes for their income but at least they get taxed when they spend it.

Jim Rogers, the US billionaire investor, has always advocated taxing on spending rather than investing. Maybe if that had been the case before the recession it might not have happened. The recession was largely caused by people spending money that they didn't have and over-heating the economy.

MetaStocker · « **Reply #29 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 15:42

I don't know anyone in the US who wants a VAT tax. It's very regressive and punishes spending, which is not what we need to get the economy going.

And that's nothing.
Do you know that in europe if you dare to buy a house you will have to pay a monthly or recurring property tax ?

In France they even had a tax if you had a balcony.

What if you own a car, same, you're taxed, and you must have insurance etc, no matter if you leave your car in the garage.

Do you want to walk in a bar and have a beer ? 20% is in VAT, and same in supermarkets and pretty much anything else, whatever you buy 1/5th goes to the government and if we talk about cigarettes or gas it can be as much as 80%.

MetaStocker · « **Reply #30 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:04 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 06, 2012, 15:49

Quote from: MetaStocker on December 06, 2012, 15:34
Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 13:14
OTOH, Europeans have a social safety net. If you are unemployed or sick you are far less likely to end up homeless.

It depends on MANY factors and also by country, by region, and even by city.

Yes, if you're sick you can get a bed in a hospital, but otherwise you can pretty much end up under a bridge or begging for food in a church or other religious NGOs feeding the beggars, we've millions of homeless people, no matter if people outside europe think we've a happy welfare, it's BS, and it's BS even in scandinavia where taxation is up to 50%, see by yourself how many homeless you see in Stockholm alone.

You are 100% correct. I am born in Stockholm, live there and in London. Nowdays I have a farm in the country, Smaland. Its total BS, sweden is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. Yes the standard is high, etc. Nowdays there are countless homeless people and especially young people, sleeping under bridges, this and that.
Ofcourse, its not like NY or London but then again Stockholm has a populatiuon of only 1-5, million, so there is no excuse at all.

Yes, especially YOUNG people, that's the problem, and all they can do is switching to crime.

lisafx · « **Reply #31 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:10 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2012, 16:00

You already have 'VAT' in the US. It's just that you call it 'sales tax' and it's controlled by individual states rather than Federally (and is a lot less than in most European countries). In the US property taxes are vastly higher than in Europe. Swings and roundabouts.

The only time I have heard VAT tax discussed in the US it they were referring to a national tax, and it was going to be IN ADDITION to the state sales and property taxes.

It is regressive because, although the wealthy can't avoid paying it, the middle class and poor end up spending far greater proportions of their income than the wealthy do. Which, of course, explains why billionaires would be in favor of it.

MetaStocker · « **Reply #32 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2012, 16:00

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 15:42
I don't know anyone in the US who wants a VAT tax. It's very regressive and punishes spending, which is not what we need to get the economy going.

You already have 'VAT' in the US. It's just that you call it 'sales tax' and it's controlled by individual states rather than Federally (and is a lot less than in most European countries). In the US property taxes are vastly higher than in Europe. Swings and roundabouts.

One of the good things about VAT is that it is difficult for the wealthy to avoid. They might be able to hire accountants for creative tax-avoidance schemes for their income but at least they get taxed when they spend it.

Jim Rogers, the US billionaire investor, has always advocated taxing on spending rather than investing. Maybe if that had been the case before the recession it might not have happened. The recession was largely caused by people spending money that they didn't have and over-heating the economy.

What surprises me is how much americas are surprised in the whole rest of the world taxes are so high.

It's usual for us in europe saying that some thing could only work or succeed in America as in europe you couldn't fly due to taxation and red tape.

So, really you guys complain having it tough but you're still the most business-friendly place on heart apart the many "financial paradises" like HongKong or Singapore.

Unfortunately the US is so hostile to foreigners nowadays including europeans, much better and easier to move in Canada from any point of view, but even there .. you see .. these guys think they're giving you a favour ... imagine that ! a european downgrading to canada or US or Australia.

MetaStocker · « **Reply #33 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:10

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2012, 16:00

You already have 'VAT' in the US. It's just that you call it 'sales tax' and it's controlled by individual states rather than Federally (and is a lot less than in most European countries). In the US property taxes are vastly higher than in Europe. Swings and roundabouts.

The only time I have heard VAT tax discussed in the US it they were referring to a national tax, and it was going to be IN ADDITION to the state sales and property taxes.

It is regressive because, although the wealthy can't avoid paying it, the middle class and poor end up spending far greater proportions of their income than the wealthy do. Which, of course, explains why billionaires would be in favor of it.

Wasn't Warren Buffett complaining he was paying as much taxes as his secretary ?

And about tax recycling and money laundering, is it me or all the mega-rich guys run their own charity including Bill Gates, Soros, and claim to be "philantropists" ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #34 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:10

The only time I have heard VAT tax discussed in the US it they were referring to a national tax, and it was going to be IN ADDITION to the state sales and property taxes.

It is regressive because, although the wealthy can't avoid paying it, the middle class and poor end up spending far greater proportions of their income than the wealthy do. Which, of course, explains why billionaires would be in favor of it.

I've never quite understood the 'regressive tax' arguement, which left-wingers in the UK always scream about with regard to VAT. The cost of all goods and services is effectively 'regressive' in that they all absorb a greater proportion of a poor person's income than a rich person __ but nobody says that a paintbrush or an ipad or whatever should be cheaper for a poor person to buy than a rich one do they?

VAT was originally designated as a 'luxury goods tax' and different things attract different rates. Most food and all books, newspapers, children's clothes, etc are actually VAT 'zero-rated'. Energy used to be zero-rated too but is now taxed at 5% in the UK. During the 70's, when Britain had massive economic problems, VAT went up to 25% for 'luxury' imported goods like TV's, cameras, etc.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:38 »

Quote from: MetaStocker on December 06, 2012, 16:19

Wasn't Warren Buffett complaining he was paying as much taxes as his secretary ?

No, he was saying it is unfair that his tax rate is so much LOWER than his secretary pays.

Had you bothered to google it, you would have probably found this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/01/warren-buffett-and-his-secretary-talk-taxes/[/url]

One relevant part is:

Bosanek(Buffet's secretary) pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:40 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2012, 16:33

I've never quite understood the 'regressive tax' arguement, which left-wingers in the UK always scream about with regard to VAT. The cost of all goods and services is effectively 'regressive' in that they all absorb a greater proportion of a poor person's income than a rich person __ but nobody says that a paintbrush or an ipad or whatever should be cheaper for a poor person to buy than a rich one do they?

VAT was originally designated as a 'luxury goods tax' and different things attract different rates. Most food and all books, newspapers, children's clothes, etc are actually VAT 'zero-rated'. Energy used to be zero-rated too but is now taxed at 5% in the UK. During the 70's, when Britain had massive economic problems, VAT went up to 25% for 'luxury' imported goods like TV's, cameras, etc.

Sounds like you understand it, but disagree.

Poncke · « **Reply #37 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:47 »

The US has VAT on products. Its about 7%, depending on the state you are in. Or am I missing something.

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:49 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 06, 2012, 16:47

The US has VAT on products. Its about 7%, depending on the state you are in. Or am I missing something.

Yes, you're missing Gostwyck's post making the same point, and my reply to it.

Poncke · « **Reply #39 on:** December 06, 2012, 16:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:49

Quote from: Poncke on December 06, 2012, 16:47
The US has VAT on products. Its about 7%, depending on the state you are in. Or am I missing something.

Yes, you're missing Gostwyck's post making the same point, and my reply to it.

I saw that but I understood from your reply that you said you didnt have VAT. Must have misunderstood your reply then.

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** December 06, 2012, 17:21 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 06, 2012, 16:51

I saw that but I understood from your reply that you said you didnt have VAT. Must have misunderstood your reply then.

Right, we don't have a national VAT. Quoting what I said before on the subject:

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:10

The only time I have heard VAT tax discussed in the US they were referring to a national tax, and it was going to be IN ADDITION to the state sales and property taxes.

sharpshot · « **Reply #41 on:** December 06, 2012, 18:11 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 06, 2012, 16:33

I've never quite understood the 'regressive tax' arguement, which left-wingers in the UK always scream about with regard to VAT....

Funny but I've always thought it's only right-wingers that try and argue that VAT isn't regressive. Might explain why good time George was so eager to increase VAT. And I don't think those that have a good understanding of economics really believe it. Economists often argue that black is white. This is a great quote by Ezra Solomon, “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”.

And I'm quite right wing on tax. I think lower taxation makes people earn more, spend more and it increases the governments tax revenues. Has the VAT hike helped the UK economy? At least we're doing slightly better than Italy

aspp · « **Reply #42 on:** December 06, 2012, 18:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:38

Quote from: MetaStocker on December 06, 2012, 16:19

Wasn't Warren Buffett complaining he was paying as much taxes as his secretary ?

No, he was saying it is unfair that his tax rate is so much LOWER than his secretary pays.

There is nothing to stop him from choosing to paying more tax. AFAIK the write-in option still exists for him to opt to pay more.

Probably like many very wealthy people he pays himself very little. In which case not much income tax to pay. Is he arguing that wealth and beneficial ownership should be taxed rather than income ?

If govts stopped spending so much money on foreign wars .... Etc

RacePhoto · « **Reply #43 on:** December 06, 2012, 22:15 »

#1 It's Fiscal Cliff not Financial Cliff? http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=fiscal-cliff

#2 Buffett reveals that he made $62,855,038 last year. He also said his taxable income was $39,814,784. If he was taxed at (that terribly low rate of) 17% that was... $6,768,513 in income taxes. He pays 15% on capitol gains which is most of his income.

#3 if his secretary made half a million income (and she's likely to be making at least $250,000 a year, that Poor Little overtaxed lady) She paid $175,000 in taxes. Assuming no deduction and taxable income was 100% of her earned income, which is unlikely.

Here's the 6th grad math question. Who paid more taxes?

No dodging the facts, Buffet paid in about 6.5 million more dollars in Federal taxes, in bottom line, real money. Who paid more into the treasury in real dollars, not percentages?

Tax the rich, heck we already do that! LOL

The upper 50% of the wage earners pay @97% of all tax collections, and the lower ones only @3%. It can't be simpler than real numbers. The Top 1% of earners = 37% of taxes paid, the next bracket 2-5% accounts for another 20%. So about 57% paid by the top 5%. This is personal income taxes. Want that again? 57% of all income taxes collected, come from 5% of the people.

Where the taxes get really regressive and a burden on the average person is the state and local taxes. Not income taxes. True most states have a sales tax of 6-7% and they also have sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, and highway taxes on fuel if you drive a vehicle. Everyone pays these, regardless of income level. You want regressive? Start with local, not the Feds.

Ed · « **Reply #44 on:** December 06, 2012, 23:07 »

Here's a chart of effective tax rates by size of income.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=366

I've been paying 13% in income tax for years.

It might also interest you that the majority of Americans (I think the last number I saw was about 60%) don't pay income tax.

That doesn't mean they don't pay sales tax, payroll tax, excise tax on the fuel they buy or the hunting/fishing gear they buy, etc., etc.

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** December 06, 2012, 23:23 »

Quote from: aspp on December 06, 2012, 18:50

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2012, 16:38
Quote from: MetaStocker on December 06, 2012, 16:19

Wasn't Warren Buffett complaining he was paying as much taxes as his secretary ?

No, he was saying it is unfair that his tax rate is so much LOWER than his secretary pays.

There is nothing to stop him from choosing to paying more tax. AFAIK the write-in option still exists for him to opt to pay more.

Probably like many very wealthy people he pays himself very little. In which case not much income tax to pay. Is he arguing that wealth and beneficial ownership should be taxed rather than income ?

If govts stopped spending so much money on foreign wars .... Etc

I was correcting Metastocker's misquoting of Buffet. I'm not going to sit here and try to speak for the man or explain what was in his mind when he made the statement. You should direct your questions to him or his representatives.

JPSDK · « **Reply #46 on:** December 07, 2012, 00:18 »

Where are you from meta? some of the information you come up with is quite different from how things are in the part of Europe I live in. (Denmark)

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #47 on:** December 07, 2012, 01:43 »

Sweden house three famillies who are among the top 20 richest families in the world ( according to Forbes anyway) the IKEA boss, the Hennes& Mauritz boss and the Bankers Wallenberg.

These three families are totally exempted from ANY tax what so ever. Reason behind it? then they will remain in Sweden, which ofcourse they havent.

Still. I am a conservative, have always been and always will be. Having said that, when pple are worth billions and billions of dollars, well? I think its a pretty weird decision.

Myself? Jersey and Guernsey. Tax heavens

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Financial Cliff in United States and impact on sales (Read 27122 times)

MetaStocker

lisafx

ClaridgeJ

gostwyck

MetaStocker

MetaStocker

lisafx

MetaStocker

MetaStocker

gostwyck

lisafx

lisafx

Poncke

lisafx

Poncke

lisafx

sharpshot

aspp

RacePhoto

Ed

lisafx

JPSDK

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors