做一个简单的假设,25万以上的钱,90%征税。那么收入25万以上的人(富人)会怎么办?
我没挣那么多,“如果“我挣那么多,25万以上,我全交税。谁让我是个高尚的人呢? ;)
所以,更准确地提问,应该是你认为(based on what you see in the U.S.)除你以外的富人会怎么办?
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
LM wrote:
做一个简单的假设,25万以上的钱,90%征税。那么收入25万以上的人(富人)会怎么办?
我没挣那么多,“如果“我挣那么多,25万以上,我全交税。谁让我是个高尚的人呢? ;)
所以,更准确地提问,应该是你认为(based on what you see in the U.S.)除你以外的富人会怎么办?
想不到在美国又接受了一次共产主义大公无私的教育。感动ing。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
I will ask the boss for a demotion. Why work harder for less pay? - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
by the way, 25 w is for family - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
我们街坊家家都挣很多,没人提这个问题。大都准备选奥巴马。莫非难过的都是计划挣大钱的。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
手里有钱,主动分给穷人(像比尔盖茨一样),是高尚的事情。
手里有钱,被强迫给出,是无奈的事情。
经历过中国社会主义,还不懂这两种的区别,是可怜的事情。:)) - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
哎,挣多少钱,都别太把自己当根葱。就算自己是棵葱,这棵葱长在了肥沃的粪堆上,千万不要拒绝与旁边的葱分享这堆粪,以此换取一些阳光和水分。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
看起来苦瓜的邻居都是高尚的人,跟我一样。
跟我也不一样,我还是在“如果“状态,人家是真的。
令狐跟我一样,也是“如果“。
还没人实质性的回答我的问题,不过回帖的人或多或少都对我的问题显得有些emotional。
苦瓜 wrote:
我们街坊家家都挣很多,没人提这个问题。大都准备选奥巴马。莫非难过的都是计划挣大钱的。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
90%以上?有这样的地方吗?也许你该把25万改成25mil?
如果是一直到50%, 我都交。>50%? 还没想好。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
交90%的税,就等于住房、医疗、教育、结婚、生儿、旅游、渡假、赌博、瞌药.......全由政府包干了吧?
剩下10%就当零花钱,或者上厕所可以临时替代手纸。 - posted on 10/30/2008
From wiki:
History of top rates
In 1913 the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000.
During World War I the top rate rose to 77%; after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 25%.
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached
94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.
In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).
During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.
The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA).
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
Susan wrote:
From wiki:
苏三一直潜水,就这一要害贴才忍无可忍,估计是25W一族的干活?:))
两战期间美国的兵器工业由国营撑腰,贡献突出。假如都是由私人公司操纵,可能等原子弹造出来了,销售部门就一家兜售一颗吧? - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
This may answer LM's question.
Laffer Curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
WOA, I am appointed as the Secretary of Treasury at home and that is where my minds are right now. - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
thanks.
This is the 1st time I feel so proud of this cafe. - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
有些人居然50%就要犯嘀咕!?
看看过去的8年在共和党的统治下,最低工资就没有长过一个子,老百姓忙死忙活,连温饱都赚不上,这种社会现象公平吗?20年来,社会财富的分配不公,已经到了令人麻木的地步。
100%我都不眨眼,遑论50%。:)
当然,我现在还是“如果“。
赏石 wrote:
90%以上?有这样的地方吗?也许你该把25万改成25mil?
如果是一直到50%, 我都交。>50%? 还没想好。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
政府全包的生活体验过,只是政府包的旅游、渡假、赌博、瞌药.......没体验过。
提醒大家,我是说25W以上的钱,缴90%。
老瓦 wrote:
交90%的税,就等于住房、医疗、教育、结婚、生儿、旅游、渡假、赌博、瞌药.......全由政府包干了吧?
剩下10%就当零花钱,或者上厕所可以临时替代手纸。 - posted on 10/30/2008
这连一个星期都没到,就秋后算账了? :-(
LM wrote:
有些人居然50%就要犯嘀咕!?
看看过去的8年在共和党的统治下,最低工资就没有长过一个子,老百姓忙死忙活,连温饱都赚不上,这种社会现象公平吗?20年来,社会财富的分配不公,已经到了令人麻木的地步。
100%我都不眨眼,遑论50%。:)
当然,我现在还是“如果“。
赏石 wrote:
90%以上?有这样的地方吗?也许你该把25万改成25mil?
如果是一直到50%, 我都交。>50%? 还没想好。 - posted on 10/30/2008
哪里,赏石的文章我都仔细看,努力学习,那些金融大词儿学不明白,浅显的道理还可以笨学笨用。;)
赏石 wrote:
这连一个星期都没到,就秋后算账了? :-(
LM wrote:
有些人居然50%就要犯嘀咕!?
看看过去的8年在共和党的统治下,最低工资就没有长过一个子,老百姓忙死忙活,连温饱都赚不上,这种社会现象公平吗?20年来,社会财富的分配不公,已经到了令人麻木的地步。
100%我都不眨眼,遑论50%。:)
当然,我现在还是“如果“。
赏石 wrote:
90%以上?有这样的地方吗?也许你该把25万改成25mil?
如果是一直到50%, 我都交。>50%? 还没想好。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/30/2008
谢谢。
很好的链接。
Susan wrote:
This may answer LM's question.
Laffer Curve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve WOA, I am appointed as the Secretary of Treasury at home and that is where my minds are right now. - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/31/2008
In USSA, we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/31/2008
补充说明:当时百分之九十几的最高税率是应用于某个数值以上的收入。按通货膨胀率计算,相当于现在的年收入3百万美元以上。
Susan wrote:
The top rate reached
94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.
- posted on 10/31/2008
LM wrote:
有些人居然50%就要犯嘀咕!?
看看过去的8年在共和党的统治下,最低工资就没有长过一个子,老百姓忙死忙活,连温饱都赚不上,这种社会现象公平吗?20年来,社会财富的分配不公,已经到了令人麻木的地步。
100%我都不眨眼,遑论50%。:)
好像今年就长了吧。明年或者后年还要长一次。 不过。克林顿的八年,最低收入的那一群人好像也没有得到什么好处。好处都叫有高等教育的IT和科技精英,还有管理阶层给占了。
美国制造业被迫迁居海外有好几个原因:环保压力,节节升高的福利负担,最重要的还是工人薪资太高,成本高居不下,无法竞争。美国工人比其它国家的工人受到更好的教育吗?美国工人比其它国家的工人有更高的劳动效率吗?美国工人比其它国家的工人更尽忠职守吗?好像没有吧。那么,美国工人凭什么就必须比别的国家的工人要拿得多?美国的“老百姓忙死忙活”?你是指那些收入在$250K 以上的人吧。美国的蓝领工人加班的薪资是一倍半。老板真那么大方吗?况且,美国的制造业基本上都已迁居海外,普通老百姓上哪去“忙死忙活”?
在美国你只要有个全职工作,会“连温饱都赚不上”吗?我当年读研究生时一个月600美元,不仅温饱不成问题,还买车,汇钱给国内,给六四捐款。
美国的三大车厂有两个快要垮了。为什么他们搞不过丰田本田?除技术落后外,最重要的原因是美国有UAW而丰田本田没有。
美国人要开放市场,让国外价廉物美的产品涌进来,同时又要自己生产的价高质劣的产品卖出去,又要人人拿高工资,又要环境清洁优美,这种天方夜谭会出现吗?奥巴马说,会。 哈哈! - posted on 10/31/2008
你说的这些东西都有一定的道理,到了最后就总结成奥巴马说;会。我这么饭奥巴马,一点儿没觉出他有那意思。你啥时候跟他唠嗑得出这结论的?这不成了八股文了吗?
那天一个台湾妈妈跟我说,小时候写作文,无论写什么事,哪怕是出去春游一场,写得满枝春色,最后都要加一句:一定要反攻大陆。另一位台湾妈妈冲我说:你们肯定是说:一点要解放台湾。我说:一笑同学说,这都是奥巴马的错。
哈哈一笑 wrote:
好像今年就长了吧。明年或者后年还要长一次。 不过。克林顿的八年,最低收入的那一群人好像也没有得到什么好处。好处都叫有高等教育的IT和科技精英,还有管理阶层给占了。
美国制造业被迫迁居海外有好几个原因:环保压力,节节升高的福利负担,最重要的还是工人薪资太高,成本高居不下,无法竞争。美国工人比其它国家的工人受到更好的教育吗?美国工人比其它国家的工人有更高的劳动效率吗?美国工人比其它国家的工人更尽忠职守吗?好像没有吧。那么,美国工人凭什么就必须比别的国家的工人要拿得多?美国的“老百姓忙死忙活”?你是指那些收入在$250K 以上的人吧。美国的蓝领工人加班的薪资是一倍半。老板真那么大方吗?况且,美国的制造业基本上都已迁居海外,普通老百姓上哪去“忙死忙活”?
在美国你只要有个全职工作,会“连温饱都赚不上”吗?我当年读研究生时一个月600美元,不仅温饱不成问题,还买车,汇钱给国内,给六四捐款。
美国的三大车厂有两个快要垮了。为什么他们搞不过丰田本田?除技术落后外,最重要的原因是美国有UAW而丰田本田没有。
美国人要开放市场,让国外价廉物美的产品涌进来,同时又要自己生产的价高质劣的产品卖出去,又要人人拿高工资,又要环境清洁优美,这种天方夜谭会出现吗?奥巴马说,会。 哈哈! - posted on 10/31/2008
好像没有人愿意回答这个问题,让我有点吃惊,我以为25W以上的人一般避免谈这个问题,看来咖啡店是个富人俱乐部,这店里的富人同外面不一样,都是高尚的人,所以我要再次宣布,“如果“有一天我是富人了,我一定做一个高尚的富人。
根据我的假设,先让我揣测一下咖啡店以外的富人的想法,小人度君子。
我是一名诊所的医生,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,90% tax,现在只能拿回来1W, 我算了一下,我决定把收入提高到60W,然后节省开支,让一个护士改成pat-time。我坚定地站在中产阶级一边(他们是我的客户),支持对他们减税,对我们加税。
我是一名律师事务所的律师,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,90% tax,现在只能拿回来1W, 我算了一下,我决定把收入提高到60W,然后节省开支,让一个秘书改成pat-time。我坚定地站在中产阶级一边(他们是我的客户),支持对他们减税,对我们加税。
我是一名大餐馆的老板,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,90% tax,现在只能拿回来1W, 我算了一下,我决定把收入提高到60W,然后节省开支,让一个服务员回家。我坚定地站在中产阶级一边(他们是我的客户),支持对他们减税,对我们加税。
我是一名小演员,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,90% tax,现在只能拿回来1W, 我算了一下,我决定把下一个电影合同提高到80W,很遗憾,我没人可裁。我坚定地站在中产阶级一边(他们是我的客户),支持对他们减税,对我们加税。
我是一名板凳队员,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,90% tax,现在只能拿回来1W, 我算了一下,我决定把下一个合同提高到80W,很遗憾,我没人可裁。我坚定地站在中产阶级一边(他们是我的客户),支持对他们减税,对我们加税。
。。。。。。。。。。。。
我是一名中产阶级,没有权利裁人,要求涨工资的余地不大,但我很高兴,因为我手里有一张政府发来退税支票。当我到诊所,餐馆,电影院,体育场。。。,还有师事务所(很不幸)走了一遭,我要大声疾呼,政府在哪里?
。。。。。。。
我是一名政客,带着正义的面孔,振臂一呼,LET’S CHANGE !
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 10/31/2008
前两天参加了一个聚会,里面大都是属于你说的“富人”(25W基本是他们居住的当地中点家庭收入),这是一种随意聚会,交流大家关心的问题。本来想帮你问问问题的,出乎意料,大选和金融危机没有被任何一个人提出来谈。富人怎么办?这个问题要靠观察。Talk is cheap。
总是有高尚的富人,不高尚的富人,和许许多多平平常常的富人,要怎么办,该怎么办还是会怎么办。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/01/2008
咱坦白,咱是混进富人俱乐部的穷人。
I am with you 90%. :-)
LM wrote:
好像没有人愿意回答这个问题,让我有点吃惊,我以为25W以上的人一般避免谈这个问题,看来咖啡店是个富人俱乐部,这店里的富人同外面不一样,都是高尚的人,所以我要再次宣布,“如果“有一天我是富人了,我一定做一个高尚的富人。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/02/2008
哈哈哈,苦瓜。我服了你了。。。
我也不明白富人多的蓝区怎么都会选奥巴马,而且都是心甘情愿地接受他的税收计划。。。?
而且欧洲的税收的多,也没见到他们的生活比我们差。
苦瓜 wrote:
我们街坊家家都挣很多,没人提这个问题。大都准备选奥巴马。莫非难过的都是计划挣大钱的。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/02/2008
那天听了格林斯潘那番完全放任资本主义自由发展,危害极大的话之后,我想了很多。其实美国应该多像欧洲学习,借鉴一下他们那资本主义和社会主义相结合的方法。
这样的社会贫富差距不会那样大,社会比较稳定,人们的生活质量也比较高。而且看看德国,英国,瑞士。。。我也不觉得那样的制度束缚了生产力的发展。。。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
Now, you sound like Obama's wife :-) but I know you love cafe anyway since you are always around :-)
pepper wrote:
thanks.
This is the 1st time I feel so proud of this cafe. - posted on 11/03/2008
如果我是个政客,我说我给你们大家减税,因为你们有钱人是社会经济的推动者,你们可以创造出更多的就业机会。
根据LM的假设,先让我揣测一下咖啡店以外的富人的想法,小人度君子。
我是一名诊所的医生,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,同时节省开支,让一个护士做小时工。反正我的病人就是这样多。
我是一名律师事务所的律师,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,节省开支,让一个秘书做小时工。我的客户基本上是固定的。
我是一名大餐馆的老板,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,节省开支,让一个服务员做小时工。我的客户基本上是固定的。
我是工厂老板,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,美国的工人人工太贵, 我把多出来的钱移到海外投资。
我是一名中产阶级,没有权利裁人,要求涨工资的余地不大,而且找工作的机会越来越小, 我没有医疗保险,股票市场崩溃,我的养老金全没了,交不起房租,房子被银行没收, 因为花儿街贪得无厌,我大声地问:这就是我的美国梦?
我是一名有良心的政治家,我说,Let's change! 让我们为在美国本土的小工商业减税,创造更多的就业机会,给外包企业加税,保护美国老百姓的利益,给富人加一些税,当然不是90%,把钱投资于新能源工业的开发,创造工作机会,使美国能源自立,这样,我们不会没完没了打伊拉克, 给中产阶级减税,促进消费,经济才能良性循环。。。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
"Happiness only real when shared." - posted on 11/03/2008
Parade杂志把这份研究报告的结论,简化成下面一分表格。
家庭年收入---------------奥巴马计划--------------马凯恩计划
低于1万9000元-----------减税567元--------------减税21元
1万9000-3万7600元-------减税892元--------------减税118元
3万7600-6万6400元-------减税1118元-------------减税325元
6万6400-11万1600元------减税1264元-------------减税994元
11万1600-16万1000元-----减税2135元-------------减税2584元
16万1000-22万7000元-----减税2796元-------------减税4437元
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
22万7000-60万3400元-----加税121元--------------减税8154元
60万3400-287万元--------加税9万3709元----------减税4万8862元
287万元以上-------------加税54万2882元----------减税29万0708元
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
And the so claimed "95% of the population will get a tax cut" obviously includes the underestimated 58 million who are not liable to file a tax return. How convenient.
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
What about McCain? He claims that 100% will get a tax cut, is it convenie?
moab wrote:
And the so claimed "95% of the population will get a tax cut" obviously includes the underestimated 58 million who are not liable to file a tax return. How convenient.
- posted on 11/03/2008
Don't put words in McCain's mouth. Here's a more authoritative source, FYI:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
100% wrote:
What about McCain? He claims that 100% will get a tax cut, is it convenie?
moab wrote:
And the so claimed "95% of the population will get a tax cut" obviously includes the underestimated 58 million who are not liable to file a tax return. How convenient.
- posted on 11/03/2008
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
[Review & Outlook] AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
[Review & Outlook]
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Obama's 95% Illusion
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered. - posted on 11/03/2008
July wrote:
Parade杂志把这份研究报告的结论,简化成下面一分表格。
家庭年收入---------------奥巴马计划--------------马凯恩计划
低于1万9000元-----------减税567元--------------减税21元
1万9000-3万7600元-------减税892元--------------减税118元
3万7600-6万6400元-------减税1118元-------------减税325元
6万6400-11万1600元------减税1264元-------------减税994元
11万1600-16万1000元-----减税2135元-------------减税2584元
16万1000-22万7000元-----减税2796元-------------减税4437元
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
22万7000-60万3400元-----加税121元--------------减税8154元
60万3400-287万元--------加税9万3709元----------减税4万8862元
287万元以上-------------加税54万2882元----------减税29万0708元
在美国,如果你的家庭有三口人,收入$19000,19000/3 = $6300,远低于最低贫困线。即使按今天的税率,你不但所有的税都会退光,反而可以拿到许多政府福利,如住房补贴等。马凯恩计划要给他们减税21元,这马马虎虎还说得过去,因为他们也就只交这么一点税了。奥巴马说要给你减税567元,不知道这567元是从哪里减来的。
在美国,收入阶层在低40%的人基本上是不缴什么税的。因为他们交给联邦政府的钱差不多就是Social Security。那不是严格意义上的税,而是他们自己的养老金。奥巴马说要给这些人减1118至1264的税。这从哪里减?
折腾了半生,躲避了中国共产主义,却又迎来了美国的共产主义。 甩开了中国的不劳而获阶层,如今却又在供养美国的不劳而获阶层。TMD共产主义难道就这么香吗?
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
低收入等于不劳而获吗?你交了多少税?够几个五百吨级的炸弹?回中国去吧。
哈哈一笑 wrote:
折腾了半生,躲避了中国共产主义,却又迎来了美国的共产主义。 甩开了中国的不劳而获阶层,如今却又在供养美国的不劳而获阶层。TMD共产主义难道就这么香吗?
- posted on 11/03/2008
有没有人想过一家人三口只有$19000的收入,究竟够不够活命?给这样的家庭一点协助,难道不是一个社会因该做的?
working poor is really a shame in any society.
哈哈一笑 wrote:
July wrote:在美国,如果你的家庭有三口人,收入$19000,19000/3 = $6300,远低于最低贫困线。即使按今天的税率,你不但所有的税都会退光,反而可以拿到许多政府福利,如住房补贴等。马凯恩计划要给他们减税21元,这马马虎虎还说得过去,因为他们也就只交这么一点税了。奥巴马说要给你减税567元,不知道这567元是从哪里减来的。
Parade杂志把这份研究报告的结论,简化成下面一分表格。
家庭年收入---------------奥巴马计划--------------马凯恩计划
低于1万9000元-----------减税567元--------------减税21元
1万9000-3万7600元-------减税892元--------------减税118元
3万7600-6万6400元-------减税1118元-------------减税325元
6万6400-11万1600元------减税1264元-------------减税994元
11万1600-16万1000元-----减税2135元-------------减税2584元
16万1000-22万7000元-----减税2796元-------------减税4437元
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
22万7000-60万3400元-----加税121元--------------减税8154元
60万3400-287万元--------加税9万3709元----------减税4万8862元
287万元以上-------------加税54万2882元----------减税29万0708元
在美国,收入阶层在低40%的人基本上是不缴什么税的。因为他们交给联邦政府的钱差不多就是Social Security。那不是严格意义上的税,而是他们自己的养老金。奥巴马说要给这些人减1118至1264的税。这从哪里减?
折腾了半生,躲避了中国共产主义,却又迎来了美国的共产主义。 甩开了中国的不劳而获阶层,如今却又在供养美国的不劳而获阶层。TMD共产主义难道就这么香吗?
- posted on 11/03/2008
Seeing through Obamanomics
By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / September 14, 2008
ALL THROUGH the spring and summer, opinion polls tracked a growing confidence that Barack Obama could handle the economy better than John McCain. Just before the Democratic convention in August, Gallup had Obama leading McCain on the economy, 54-38 - a 16-point margin. But now Obama's lead has nearly vanished. Gallup's latest numbers show the candidates nearly tied. Just 48 percent say Obama would be more adept at superintending the economy; 45 percent choose McCain.
Looks like voters have started paying attention to Obama's economics.
On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O'Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000.
"That's class warfare," O'Reilly objected. "You're taking the wealthy in America, the big earners . . . you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet. Come on, you know that."
"Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either - "you think I like writing the check?" - but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility:
"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.
"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.
Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?
Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 - less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)
Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash - $1,000 per family, he pledges - from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar - a $1,000 "demogrant" for every US citizen. Just last year, Hillary Clinton suggested that the government start off every new baby with a $5,000 savings account. Voters didn't take the bait when McGovern and Clinton offered it. Here's betting they won't take it now.
Why not? Because you don't have to be rich to be skeptical when a candidate argues that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, who already pay 40 percent of federal income taxes, aren't being taxed enough. Nor do you have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing. Obamanomics may look pretty at first glance. But voters are focusing more closely now, and they can see beyond the lipstick.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.
Obamanomics Nov 3, 2008
by Ken Blackwell a policy consultant and legal analyst in Washington, DC.
Last week's revelation - in Barack Obama's own words - that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court should redistribute income to bring about “economic justice” in this country is the final piece of the puzzle that reveals what he believes about the role of government in our lives. Taken with his other statements about wealth, taxes and spending, it reveals a radical-left view of government like this country has never seen.
In 2001, on WBEZ radio in Chicago, then-state senator Obama gave a radio interview. Calling it “redistributive change,” Mr. Obama advocated the courts redistributing income as a civil rights issue. He acknowledged the Founders designed limits on judicial power that they considered “essential,” and then went on to say he could develop a legal justification for the courts to abandon those limits and redistribute wealth.
In that same interview, Mr. Obama said he was not optimistic about the Court redistributing income, not because the Court shouldn't, just because the process of income redistribution would be difficult for the Supreme Court to manage. However, he continued, it could be done more effectively through legislation or administrative action.
In other words, Mr. Obama doesn't at all object to federal courts redistributing income, because “economic justice” should be part of advancing civil rights.
These statements are the last piece of a puzzle people have been trying to decipher for two years: What does Mr. Obama really believe? These statements, combined with his other statements over the past few months, finally give voters a coherent picture of Mr. Obama's views.
Earlier this year, Charlie Gibson asked Mr. Obama if he would still raise capital gains tax if it would not bring in additional revenue and instead adversely affect millions of Americans. Mr. Obama responded he would still do it out of “fairness.” Even if the tax would hurt the economy, losing millions of jobs and squeezing working families, Mr. Obama will do it because in his mind it's “fair.”
That statement is consistent with Mr. Obama explaining to Joe the Plumber, “When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” It's in those moments when he's not giving canned speeches from a teleprompter, examined in advance for alarming statements, that Mr. Obama reveals what he truly thinks. By his own words, he will use government and higher taxes to “spread the wealth around.” This means he'll take it from those he decides have too much, and give it to others he decides should have more.
Add to that Mr. Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. When asked about higher taxes, Mr. Biden said it was patriotic to pay higher taxes without complaint. Later asked if Mr. Obama's statements made him a Marxist, Mr. Biden ridiculed the question and the reporter asking it.
Then Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden ridiculed Joe the Plumber by name at his campaign rallies, starting the very next day. Evidently that is how Mr. Obama will deal with people who disagree with him. He went to Joe the Plumber's neighborhood, walked down his street and in front of his house. As a voter, Joe decided to ask Mr. Obama a question. Now Mr. Obama's unscripted answer has caused him trouble, and so Joe the Plumber has been attacked by Mr. Obama and his minions for daring to question Mr. Obama in public.
A government that can take your money and redistribute income will not tolerate any criticism from the people or the press. They should simply stand quiet as an all-wise government decides how much money they should have.
And now we know he wants to appoint Supreme Court justices, with lifetime appointments, who will do the same.
This is Obamanomics. While previous American presidents based their tax policies on what would bring in the most to government coffers and help the economy, Mr. Obama says he will base tax policy on what he decides is “fair.” According to Mr. Obama, he will decide what taxes are “fair” and what distribution of wealth and income achieve “economic justice” through “redistributive change.”
That's just a fancy phrase for “spread the wealth around,” which is exactly what Mr. Obama will do unless he's stopped at the ballot box on Election Day.
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
This is the same shit they threw upon Bill Clinton when he ran for the president. What happened then?
rzp wrote:
Seeing through Obamanomics
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 14, 2008
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
Is this the same person who was suspended by the Globe because of his misconduct and then cried foul?
Guess he always held others to "a higher standard". :-)
touche wrote:
This is the same shit they threw upon Bill Clinton when he ran for the president. What happened then?
rzp wrote:
Seeing through Obamanomics
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 14, 2008
- posted on 11/03/2008
For some, it stinks more; for others, it becomes prefume and more attractive, I guess.
-----
Despite income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 - $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income. [...]
It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.
Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"
Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income.
IRS statistics reveal that the average taxpayer with AGI over $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions.
- posted on 11/03/2008
Do you suggust his points in this article are also copied from soemone else? It is possible, I supposed, he was suspended for plagiarism once afterall.
赏石 wrote:
Is this the same person who was suspended by the Globe because of his misconduct and then cried foul?
Guess he always held others to "a higher standard". :-)
touche wrote:
This is the same shit they threw upon Bill Clinton when he ran for the president. What happened then?
rzp wrote:
Seeing through Obamanomics
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 14, 2008
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
哈哈一笑 wrote:
想不到在美国又接受了一次共产主义大公无私的教育。感动ing。
这样贴标签是一种无知。
各种文明社会的政府对全体人民的生存保障负有责任。各类制度都有不同程度的救济贫穷的成分,比如征税和社会福利。
- posted on 11/03/2008
赏石 wrote:
有没有人想过一家人三口只有$19000的收入,究竟够不够活命?给这样的家庭一点协助,难道不是一个社会因该做的?
给这样的家庭一点协助?你有没有搞错?美国社会岂止给他们“一点协助”,早已经给这样的低收入家庭很多、很多的协助了 - 住房补助,孩子就学补助,医疗补助,受灾补助,等等等等。你再巧立几个名目去补助这些人都没有关系,但却不要打着“退税”的名义 - 没有交的税,如何去退?你说“退税”就好像这些人拿回了他们交给政府的钱那样。实际上他们并没有把那部分钱交给政府,而是政府强行在拿别人的钱给他们。
所以说,奥巴马的所谓“改变”不过是要来一个财产按人头重新分布。麦肯恩要搞得是社会主义,而奥巴马要搞得确是共产主义。麦肯恩至少还强调多劳多得,少劳少得。而奥巴马却要打共产,强行把富人的钱送给穷人。 - posted on 11/03/2008
This is called "refundable tax credit". It is common practice throughout the developed country. In UK, there are "working tax credit", "child tax credit", etc.. In US, in addition to "earned income tax credit", it used to have "hope and lifetime learning educational tax credit" just a few years back.
哈哈一笑 wrote:
赏石 wrote:给这样的家庭一点协助?你有没有搞错?美国社会岂止给他们“一点协助”,早已经给这样的低收入家庭很多、很多的协助了 - 住房补助,孩子就学补助,医疗补助,受灾补助,等等等等。你再巧立几个名目去补助这些人都没有关系,但却不要打着“退税”的名义 - 没有交的税,如何去退?你说“退税”就好像这些人拿回了他们交给政府的钱那样。实际上他们并没有把那部分钱交给政府,而是政府强行在拿别人的钱给他们。
有没有人想过一家人三口只有$19000的收入,究竟够不够活命?给这样的家庭一点协助,难道不是一个社会因该做的?
所以说,奥巴马的所谓“改变”不过是要来一个财产按人头重新分布。麦肯恩要搞得是社会主义,而奥巴马要搞得确是共产主义。麦肯恩至少还强调多劳多得,少劳少得。而奥巴马却要打共产,强行把富人的钱送给穷人。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/03/2008
US is in such a dire situation that everyone wants a change. Are you sure the change you want is the same change Obama promised?
For one thing, Obama wants to renegotiate the NFTA free trade treaty with Canada to protect the american manufacture job market. Is this what you want? - posted on 11/03/2008
As far as I understand, he wants to put into the provisions such as environmental protection, minimum wage restriction, etc. I don't see any problem with that. I have no qualm to force corporations be a more responsive society citizen.
He also propose the tax credit for company to create jobs here, and I am strongly favor of that policy.
pepper wrote:
US is in such a dire situation that everyone wants a change. Are you sure the change you want is the same change Obama promised?
For one thing, Obama wants to renegotiate the NFTA free trade treaty with Canada to protect the american manufacture job market. Is this what you want? - posted on 11/04/2008
McCain has similar (though less radical) positions on these issues.
McCain and Obama actually held very similar views on many issues. Since McCain has a less radical and more moderate approach, I like him more.
赏石 wrote:
As far as I understand, he wants to put into the provisions such as environmental protection, minimum wage restriction, etc. I on't see any problem with that. I have no qualm to force corporations be a more responsive society citizen.
He also propose the tax credit for company to create jobs here, and I am strongly favor of that policy.
pepper wrote:
US is in such a dire situation that everyone wants a change. Are you sure the change you want is the same change Obama promised?
For one thing, Obama wants to renegotiate the NFTA free trade treaty with Canada to protect the american manufacture job market. Is this what you want? - posted on 11/04/2008
这位哈哈能不能给社会主义下个定义?
1%税收算不算搞社会主义?算不算强行把富人的钱送给穷人?
哈哈一笑 wrote:
赏石 wrote:给这样的家庭一点协助?你有没有搞错?美国社会岂止给他们“一点协助”,早已经给这样的低收入家庭很多、很多的协助了 - 住房补助,孩子就学补助,医疗补助,受灾补助,等等等等。你再巧立几个名目去补助这些人都没有关系,但却不要打着“退税”的名义 - 没有交的税,如何去退?你说“退税”就好像这些人拿回了他们交给政府的钱那样。实际上他们并没有把那部分钱交给政府,而是政府强行在拿别人的钱给他们。
有没有人想过一家人三口只有$19000的收入,究竟够不够活命?给这样的家庭一点协助,难道不是一个社会因该做的?
所以说,奥巴马的所谓“改变”不过是要来一个财产按人头重新分布。麦肯恩要搞得是社会主义,而奥巴马要搞得确是共产主义。麦肯恩至少还强调多劳多得,少劳少得。而奥巴马却要打共产,强行把富人的钱送给穷人。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
我说赏石,老这么煽情累不累呀? ;)
要不我在来一次?命都活不了,50%还要考虑? :)
我认为你能写出来定性定量的东西来.
赏石 wrote:
有没有人想过一家人三口只有$19000的收入,究竟够不够活命?给这样的家庭一点协助,难道不是一个社会因该做的?
- posted on 11/04/2008
wait a minute.
明明减税会让老板把做工时间减8小时,同时节省开支,让一个员工做小时工,把多出来的钱移到海外投资。怎么又成了创造更多的就业机会?
我没有医疗保险,股票市场崩溃,我的养老金全没了,交不起房租,房子被银行没收,可有些人25W 还不够,90%征税还嫌多。。。难道非要看到路有冻死骨吗?
对不起,情绪不稳定,都是赏石的错。
July wrote:
如果我是个政客,我说我给你们大家减税,因为你们有钱人是社会经济的推动者,你们可以创造出更多的就业机会。
根据LM的假设,先让我揣测一下咖啡店以外的富人的想法,小人度君子。
我是一名诊所的医生,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,同时节省开支,让一个护士做小时工。反正我的病人就是这样多。
我是一名律师事务所的律师,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,节省开支,让一个秘书做小时工。我的客户基本上是固定的。
我是一名大餐馆的老板,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,我决定把做工时间减8小时,节省开支,让一个服务员做小时工。我的客户基本上是固定的。
我是工厂老板,挣35W,25W以上的10W里,每年可以拿回来5W,减了税,现在能拿回来7W, 我算了一下,美国的工人人工太贵, 我把多出来的钱移到海外投资。
我是一名中产阶级,没有权利裁人,要求涨工资的余地不大,而且找工作的机会越来越小, 我没有医疗保险,股票市场崩溃,我的养老金全没了,交不起房租,房子被银行没收, 因为花儿街贪得无厌,我大声地问:这就是我的美国梦?
我是一名有良心的政治家,我说,Let's change! 让我们为在美国本土的小工商业减税,创造更多的就业机会,给外包企业加税,保护美国老百姓的利益,给富人加一些税,当然不是90%,把钱投资于新能源工业的开发,创造工作机会,使美国能源自立,这样,我们不会没完没了打伊拉克, 给中产阶级减税,促进消费,经济才能良性循环。。。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
这是乎是人人都应该懂得道理,而且政府也不反对自愿多交税,更鼓励帮助他人付房租,付医疗费,可现实是政府必须强行征税,增税。
阿姗 wrote:
"Happiness only real when shared." - posted on 11/04/2008
你真够面的。赏石没错,是你的脑子只有一根筋,思维僵化。
经济,说到底,是个供需关系,很多时候,是供大于需,说起来,减税是为了创造就业机会,带动市场经济,但如果这些给富人减的税根本没有创造就业机会,就根本没起到这种作用,我是在讽刺这种说法。
你是不是真的生活在象牙塔里?金融危机是如何来的,银行是不是没收了很多房子?你失了业,买得起一家医疗保险吗?我们上次还谈过这个问题吧?老年人的靠养老金生活,每次股市大幅动荡,很多老年人的生活马上就成了问题?这种人在我身边比比皆是,你不知道?
不是我情绪不稳,而是你心肠太硬。你到俄亥俄,密执根走走,和60-70岁的人聊聊天,看看那些失业,生病人的生活,就知道我说什么了。
LM wrote:
wait a minute.
明明减税会让老板把做工时间减8小时,同时节省开支,让一个员工做小时工,把多出来的钱移到海外投资。怎么又成了创造更多的就业机会?
我没有医疗保险,股票市场崩溃,我的养老金全没了,交不起房租,房子被银行没收,可有些人25W 还不够,90%征税还嫌多。。。难道非要看到路有冻死骨吗?
对不起,情绪不稳定,都是赏石的错。
- posted on 11/04/2008
If you want to help these people, donote your money to a charity. Government is not an efficient redistributor of wealth (think of Chinese Commu Party). Otherwise, why both Bill Gates and Buffett give 90% of their wealth to a charity rather to the government? In any case, no matter who wins, the next president will find it hard to cut tax unless he prints much more money(=inflation)
By the way, do you know that Obama wants to expand the army?
July wrote:
你真够面的。赏石没错,是你的脑子只有一根筋,思维僵化。
经济,说到底,是个供需关系,很多时候,是供大于需,说起来,减税是为了创造就业机会,带动市场经济,但如果这些给富人减的税根本没有创造就业机会,就根本没起到这种作用,我是在讽刺这 - posted on 11/04/2008
哈哈哈哈,这个世界上如果有1%的税收的国家,那一定是在梦境。就是部落酋长也至少要挨家挨户地搜刮个10%的保护费嘛。
是否社会主义并不在于税收的高低,而是在于这税收的用途。你的税收是用来造福本国或本地区所有的纳税人,保护公众的利益,那你未必就会是社会主义。如果你把纳税人的钱强行拿给穷人,有针对性地提高他们的生活水准 - 你好我好大家好,你也许就开始往社会主义大道上迅跑了。因为这里开始把一部分私人财产公有化了。圣西门、傅立叶和的欧文梦想的“人人平等,个个幸福”的社会就是这样的。 现在的许多欧洲国家,还有加拿大基本上是这个体制。美国也基本上进入初级社会主义了。好在社会主义毕竟还是按劳分配的。这一点,欧洲国家的看法和邓小平是一致的。
那么,什么是共产主义呢?这就是所谓的“按需分配”- 只要是个活人就有资格享受社会资源,而且社会必须满足所有成员的需求。马丁路德金死后,林登约翰逊为了安抚黑人,便大搞社会福利。黑人妇女只要有小孩就可以领取社会福利。这就是共产主义的苗头了。美国的共产主义和中国的共产主义一样遭到惨败。比尔克林顿把这一延续多年的荒唐“共产风”给煞住了。所以遭到了民主党内许多大佬的嫉恨。这一次他老婆丢失黑人的选票,这也是很重要的一个原因。
佩林攻击奥巴马是社会主义。她说错了。麦肯恩和佩林要的才是社会主义。奥巴马要的是共产主义。这一点,我这个读过马恩列斯的书的最清楚。
LM wrote:
这位哈哈能不能给社会主义下个定义?
1%税收算不算社会主义?算不算强行把富人的钱送给穷人? - posted on 11/04/2008
July wrote:
你真够面的。赏石没错,是你的脑子只有一根筋,思维僵化。
经济,说到底,是个供需关系,很多时候,是供大于需,说起来,减税是为了创造就业机会,带动市场经济,但如果这些给富人减的税根本没有创造就业机会,就根本没起到这种作用,我是在讽刺这种说法。
你是不是真的生活在象牙塔里?金融危机是如何来的,银行是不是没收了很多房子?你失了业,买得起一家医疗保险吗?我们上次还谈过这个问题吧?老年人的靠养老金生活,每次股市大幅动荡,很多老年人的生活马上就成了问题?这种人在我身边比比皆是,你不知道?
不是我情绪不稳,而是你心肠太硬。你到俄亥俄,密执根走走,和60-70岁的人聊聊天,看看那些失业,生病人的生活,就知道我说什么了。
经济,说到底,是个竞争力关系。很多时候,是低成本高质量的厂家获胜。日本由于银行烂帐理不清萧条了十年,有多少人失业?有多少个房子被银行没收?为什么日本老年人就没有这么惨?归根结底,美国的金融海啸的起因除了华尔街的贪婪外,还跟美国人的超前消费和大手大脚有很大的关系。前几年房价暴涨,有几个老美愿意拿涨上去的钱来还贷款?前两年股市冲天,有哪个老美拿点股金去还贷款?相反,美国人把Equity loan都拿来周游世界,买高档车,下馆子了。所以,今天的失业、银行没收房子,毫不奇怪。
美国人的就业问题根本无法解决。因为美国人要面对的是日本、韩国和欧洲的竞争对手。他们的工人教育程度更高,素质更好。中国、印度、越南的工人在教育程度上并不亚于美国工人。而工资却低得多。奥巴马倒是看到了一个便捷的办法 - 给在本地创造就业机会的企业减税。换句话说,就是变相补贴这些不赚钱的企业。 美国也不是没有严肃地考虑过产业升级。2000年的科举泡沫就是这种升级的结果。工人就是这个教育程度,又都要高工资,怎么升?要制止美国的衰败,恐怕是太晚了。
- Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
我说过,美国到今天,苏珊。桑塔格之流自以为是的学说为害不浅。 - posted on 11/04/2008
一笑先生大概忘记了,整个90年代,日本都处在ression之中,如果不是因为90年代中期世界经济的复苏(US played a critical role),日本能不能走出那场危机都不知道。
90年代,日本银行is a big "inverstor" of the synthetic security,the so called "a pot of shit with a layer of golden sand on top"。
至于日本的退休金制度,和这里的401K完全不一样。从上世纪末开始,美国公司几乎无一例外的砍掉pension而代之于401K,如果不从根本上解决这个问题,这样的事情每10年一定会发生一次。
我不是为美国人赚一块钱使一块钱的行为申辩。但为了说明你的观点,也请用一些更能让人信服的例子。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
我先生说如果 Obama 做总统,民主党大多数,政府毫无顾忌的开销,引致通货膨胀,美元贬值,我们买的金子就要大幅度升值。所以要投 Obama。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
所以劝你先生不要难为你家的金子,去投欧巴马的票。不要光说不练。
阿姗 wrote:
我先生说如果 Obama 做总统,民主党大多数,政府毫无顾忌的开销,引致通货膨胀,美元贬值,我们买的金子就要大幅度升值。所以要投 Obama。 - Re: 如果你是富人( > 25W), 你怎么办?posted on 11/04/2008
:-) :-) :-) I can't stop laughing......
哈哈一笑 wrote:
佩林攻击奥巴马是社会主义。她说错了。麦肯恩和佩林要的才是社会主义。奥巴马要的是共产主义。这一点,我这个读过马恩列斯的书的最清楚。
- posted on 11/10/2008
记得丘吉尔在他的The Gethering Storm一书里,提到
In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity;in pease, good will.
我觉得你的态度,像是in defeat。太平时期,good will是维持和平最好方式吧,我是这么理解。
不是道德说教,只是提供里另外一种思考角度。;)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
哈哈哈哈,这个世界上如果有1%的税收的国家,那一定是在梦境。就是部落酋长也至少要挨家挨户地搜刮个10%的保护费嘛。
是否社会主义并不在于税收的高低,而是在于这税收的用途。你的税收是用来造福本国或本地区所有的纳税人,保护公众的利益,那你未必就会是社会主义。如果你把纳税人的钱强行拿给穷人,有针对性地提高他们的生活水准 - 你好我好大家好,你也许就开始往社会主义大道上迅跑了。因为这里开始把一部分私人财产公有化了。圣西门、傅立叶和的欧文梦想的“人人平等,个个幸福”的社会就是这样的。 现在的许多欧洲国家,还有加拿大基本上是这个体制。美国也基本上进入初级社会主义了。好在社会主义毕竟还是按劳分配的。这一点,欧洲国家的看法和邓小平是一致的。
那么,什么是共产主义呢?这就是所谓的“按需分配”- 只要是个活人就有资格享受社会资源,而且社会必须满足所有成员的需求。马丁路德金死后,林登约翰逊为了安抚黑人,便大搞社会福利。黑人妇女只要有小孩就可以领取社会福利。这就是共产主义的苗头了。美国的共产主义和中国的共产主义一样遭到惨败。比尔克林顿把这一延续多年的荒唐“共产风”给煞住了。所以遭到了民主党内许多大佬的嫉恨。这一次他老婆丢失黑人的选票,这也是很重要的一个原因。
佩林攻击奥巴马是社会主义。她说错了。麦肯恩和佩林要的才是社会主义。奥巴马要的是共产主义。这一点,我这个读过马恩列斯的书的最清楚。
LM wrote:
这位哈哈能不能给社会主义下个定义?
1%税收算不算社会主义?算不算强行把富人的钱送给穷人?
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- LM
- #1 哈哈一笑
- #2 pepper
- #3 pepper
- #4 苦瓜
- #5 为力
- #6 苦瓜
- #7 LM
- #8 赏石
- #9 老瓦
- #10 Susan
- #11 老瓦
- #12 Susan
- #13 pepper
- #14 LM
- #15 LM
- #16 赏石
- #17 LM
- #18 LM
- #19 pepper
- #20 SevenStar
- #21 哈哈一笑
- #22 苦瓜
- #23 LM
- #24 rzp
- #25 SevenStar
- #26 星光
- #27 星光
- #28 July
- #29 July
- #30 阿姗
- #31 July
- #32 moab
- #33 100%
- #34 moab
- #35 moab
- #36 哈哈一笑
- #37 touche
- #38 赏石
- #39 rzp
- #40 touche
- #41 赏石
- #42 rzp
- #43 rzp
- #44 gz
- #45 哈哈一笑
- #46 赏石
- #47 pepper
- #48 赏石
- #49 pepper
- #50 LM
- #51 LM
- #52 LM
- #53 LM
- #54 July
- #55 pepper
- #56 哈哈一笑
- #57 哈哈一笑
- #58 文取心
- #59 赏石
- #60 阿姗
- #61 touche
- #62 SevenStar
- #63 LM
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation