I’m doing well for myself. Not worried about it.
1 Like
No wonder all the menial (and some nonmenial) labors are imported from out of the country. Because nobody wants to work here anymore since we’re all in the 1%!!! 
1 Like
Since Americans are top 1% of the world, we can set a world income tax to tax only Americans and relieve all other countries to zero income tax.
A worldwide redistribution would be a noble goal
I love people who hate the 1%. It’s fun to point out to them that if you look at the whole world, then they are part of the 1%. It’s really funny since the #1 factor in them being in the top 1% is the luck of being born in the US. Yet, they HATE people who were born into wealth.
1 Like
We are already doing that. It’s called foreign aid and proceeds distributed by the IMF and World Bank.
2 Likes
but 2/3s of US corporations don’t pay any tax. Since we have a complex tax code, look at the effective tax rate which is much, much lower then 35%.
1 Like
Part of that is the loss carry forward provision which individuals get too. There are some MASSIVE losses from 2007-2010 that companies are deducting from future income to avoid taxes. Also, the S&P500 has changed a ton. Over 50% of the revenue is from outside the US now. They aren’t going to pay US taxes on all those profits. It’d be good for the US to move to a territorial tax system which most developed countries have. That way those companies can bring those profits back home tax free.
Personally, I’d rather see us go to a 2-3% tax on revenue. That way it gets rid of all the favoritism games with deductions vs. credits. vs amortization schedules, etc.
It’s good that we are doing it. But it’s too little. USA should give away 80% of tax revenue to developing countries. What we give is less than 1% of our tax revenue.
We should require each 100k earner to provide for 10 families in Asia and each 30k earner to provide for 1 family in Africa.
Really??? How did you come up with that figure and what’s your basis for justifying that?
Go find a liberal journalist or professor, it’ll be proven by repeated media cross citation
1 Like
Well, I’m not sure about that. Not only does that number sound outrageous, it’s also unrealistic.
1 Like
This is the attitude that keeps me from going back to work. Why work my butt off so that you can take 55% of that and give it to the poor to pay for iPhones? Might as well stay home with my kids and cook them dinner.
3 Likes
Global median income is $102 per month. If you donate or be taxed $1000 per month, you can provide for 10 median families voluntarily or forcibly
Wuqijun, does it serve as a proof that it’s not outrageous mathematically for you to support 10 median families, not even 10 poor families? That’s 10 global middle class families.
“the global median income is just $1,225 a year, meaning that the world’s emerging middle classes are very far from reaching a level of wealth which would make them well-off by western standards.”
To start with, have you considered the question of whether these families even want to be supported by the US? It always comes with strings attached like birth control or abortions if you have “too many” kids.
Second, as wuqijun points out, he’s already supporting families as part of his taxes paying the US’s foreign aid. And for all you know, he’s also privately donating to his favorite charity to support in his own way.
And one question–why would I even want the government doing the job of giving to the poor for me? If you find a well-run charity, you can get probably 90% of your money ending up the place you want it–the poor and services for them. The US gov’t? I’d expect the red tape bureaucracy to eat up half of that before it made it to someone in another country.
2 Likes
Exactly, that’s why we should limit governmental role and not overtax the private citizens to make the citizens puppies of the government officials.
Just lookup what happened to all the money raised for Haiti and what was actually done with it. The people in Haiti got very little benefit from all the money raised for them.
2 Likes
Taking care of your children is taking care of the future of humanity. Perfectly ok goal. I see the feminists’ movement of women should also be competing in the work life has not affected you much.
1 Like
Thanks hanera. I appreciate that. 
Yes and no. I am a guilty feeling stay-at-home mom without my own house. But my kids are happy and well-cared for, and one of them is wicked smart, in part due to early one-on-one time.
I was discussing going back to work and the tradeoff of hiring a maid/nanny/summer camps/aftercare vs. salary with him (including excel spreadsheet of various jobs and possible payrates and bottom line extra income), and he said “Yes, but mom, time with your kids is priceless.” 
I found a neat tool to compare your net worth to others. This one is age based. Because it is not fair to compare yourself to a 65 year old when you are only 25. You should compare yourself to the ones similar to your age…
However, now that I think about it, if you compete at the Olympics, they don’t segregate people by age though… so if you’re 65 years old you must also compete with a 25 year old…
1 Like