What It Takes to Be in the 1% Around the World

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

So....after 28 pages, has this team compiled a fair and effective tax strategy to hand over to government?

Double the tax rates for retirees, they are clearly consuming more of the health care costs! ;o))

In all sincerity, I believe the architects of our tax codes are doing their very best to accomplish all the various goals they have been given. They are tasked with matching ability to pay with the need to protect a healthy investment environment and that is while still delivering on the latest election promises of the current government.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by danstanford

Double the tax rates for retirees, they are clearly consuming more of the health care costs! ;o))



In all sincerity, I believe the architects of our tax codes are doing their very best to accomplish all the various goals they have been given. They are tasked with matching ability to pay with the need to protect a healthy investment environment and that is while still delivering on the latest election promises of the current government.

What, no , all retirees to be tax excempt because … err , well it’s clear that … maybe , I’m sure given time I can come up with an answer.

[Mike OReilly]

I've come to see that a flat tax rate might be a more equitable approach. It appears to work in some northern European countries. It would be easy to maintain a carve-out for the truly low-income families, while eliminating all other exemptions.

The problem is, those with power will always find ways to argue that they need a special exemption. And as long as our political systems are beholden to private money and power, I don't see a realistic way of keeping these exemptions out.

One thing to note though, Canada and the USA have gone a long way to becoming a flat-tax regime over recent decades. As I mentioned, we've already greatly reduced the number of federal tax brackets. If you look back at the 1970s and 80s we've gone from dozens of brackets down to now about five to seven (Canada has fewer). This has greatly flattened the income tax system.


https://taxfoundation.org/historical...ates-brackets/

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've come to see that a flat tax rate might be a more equitable approach. It appears to work in some northern European countries. It would be easy to maintain a carve-out for the truly low-income families, while eliminating all other exemptions.

The problem is, those with power will always find ways to argue that they need a special exemption. And as long as our political systems are beholden to private money and power, I don't see a realistic way of keeping these exemptions out.

One thing to note though, Canada and the USA have gone a long way to becoming a flat-tax regime over recent decades. As I mentioned, we've already greatly reduced the number of federal tax brackets. If you look back at the 1970s and 80s we've gone from dozens of brackets down to now about five to seven (Canada has fewer). This has greatly flattened the income tax system.


https://taxfoundation.org/historical...ates-brackets/

We have two 20% under 40k euros , 40 % above

That’s it. ( an allowance for very low paid. ) I can compute my approximate income tax in my head.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

We have two 20% under 40k euros , 40 % above

That’s it. ( an allowance for very low paid. ) I can compute my approximate income tax in my head.

Sounds like a good approach. Are there truly no special exemptions, tax credits, special deductions, etc?

[danstanford]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The problem is, those with power will always find ways to argue that they need a special exemption. And as long as our political systems are beholden to private money and power, I don't see a realistic way of keeping these exemptions out.

I struggle to reconcile this oft cited principle in action. We know politicians do not always deliver on election promises but generally speaking voters deliver policy with their votes. We are talking about the 1% here which would, of course, be inconsequential as a electing force. Lobbying is a powerful force in the US but it certainly is not in Canada.

Accepting that the 1% is indeed arguing for this, how are they delivering it?

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The problem is, those with power will always find ways to argue that they need a special exemption. And as long as our political systems are beholden to private money and power, I don't see a realistic way of keeping these exemptions out.

"The accumulation of individual wealth seems to be greater than it ever has been since the downfall of the Roman Empire. The enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economic conquests only, but for political power... in our politics money is taking the field as an organized power. The question will arise, and arise in your day...

Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?"

~ Edward G. Ryan, 5th Chief Justice - Wisconsin Supreme Court ... 1874-1880

[MicHughV]

I don't know about the US having a simple tax code. I can't do my own taxes and wouldn't want to even if I could. I give my annual mess to a CPA. After a few weeks he provides me with a document that contains at least 20 pages of " stuff". I will give it a quick glance, but never read it, just sign it and be happy it's done and move on with my life.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by danstanford

I struggle to reconcile this oft cited principle in action. We know politicians do not always deliver on election promises but generally speaking voters deliver policy with their votes. We are talking about the 1% here which would, of course, be inconsequential as a electing force. Lobbying is a powerful force in the US but it certainly is not in Canada.

Accepting that the 1% is indeed arguing for this, how are they delivering it?

It's not as strong here in Canada, but private lobbying certainly is an active and vibrant activity. Just look at the public registry of lobbyist (and realize, much lobbying happens elsewhere). There are currently over 6500 registered lobbyists. I've been a part of this lobby tribe in the past*, so I know how busy the halls of Parliament can be with all this activity.

There are a number of studies looking at the correlation between policy implementation and public demands. The ones I'm aware of are USA-specific. They find that when looking at the needs/wants of the electorate, there is a disturbingly low correlation between this, and actual public policy. Conversely, there is a high correlation between needs/wants of wealthy classes and policy that gets implemented.

(PEW did this work. If I find the links, I'll post them again.)

In other words, public policy does not reflect the needs/wants of most of the electorate -- at least not in the USA. While it may not be as bad here in Canada, I'd be shocked if the same divide doesn't also exist.

*I've been a lobbyist at times for various issues around the writing community. Mostly around trying to achieve more favourable treatment around copyright for writers. BTW, I represented the views of thousands of writers and creators -- individual voters. The views of a few dozen publishers prevailed. Mostly it was the view of a handful of large multinational (corporate) publishers.


ADD: Here's just one summary. I wanted to add this before my "Edit" window closes.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimage...public-policy/

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...litics.doc.pdf

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

[JBP]

Talk of socialism/capitalism labels and GDP etc made me curious. This is pleasure boats per capita vs GDP per capita.

If you like boats, clearly Canada wins, followed by New Zealand, Norway, and Finland. Canada has 231.2 yachts per 1,000 people, 23%.

If you like money, Norway wins, followed by USA, Australia, and Sweeden.



Normal "yachts", not super yachts. From https://algnewsletter.com/maritime/t...he-flag-state/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by JBP

Talk of socialism/capitalism labels and GDP etc made me curious. This is pleasure boats per capita vs GDP per capita.

If you like boats, clearly Canada wins, followed by New Zealand, Norway, and Finland. Canada has 231.2 yachts per 1,000 people, 23%.

If you like money, Norway wins, followed by USA, Australia, and Sweeden.



Normal "yachts", not super yachts. From https://algnewsletter.com/maritime/t...he-flag-state/

Cool.

Looking only at this data, it suggests that countries that lean more "socialist" have greater rates of yacht ownership.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

What, no , all retirees to be tax excempt because … err , well it’s clear that … maybe , I’m sure given time I can come up with an answer.

No need to as they likely didn’t consume heath care for all those years prior :-)

Fixed it for you

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Cool.

Looking only at this data, it suggests that countries that lean more "socialist" have greater rates of yacht ownership.

I'm hoping people realize you were joking but it is interesting data.

Probably more to do with these countries having greater population in close proximity to a coastal setting with a relatively large cruise-able coast relative to that population.

N. Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Finland...all have relatively small populations and tons of very cruisable coastline.

Canada & Austrailia...they have a lot of interior land but huge swaths hold almost no residents. The people are concentrated close to the coastal areas (I'm including great lakes/St. Lawrence as coastal for Canada as it's popular cruising grounds)

UK & Italy for example have large coastlines but don't rank quite as high...but...They have substantial inland population centers which are less conducive to taking up cruising. Also they are densely populated in general. The large population relative to suitable cruising coastline puts a limit on the per capita yacht ownership.

The USA is a big of an amalgamation. It's always tricking making a comparison to much smaller countries. Say you break out Florida (not particularly socialist), I'm betting the state would rank above any of the countries listed. By contrast, NY or California (generally considered to be more socialist while having good size cruisable coasts) will fall much lower than Florida. Then how do you factor in Illinois (falls more toward the socialist side) which has about 40 miles of Lake Michigan coast in the very NE corner of the state but even that isn't great cruising grounds as it's all built up with a relatively straight coastline with limited cruising options. Then you have conservative interior states like Nebraska where I'm betting they have almost no yachts per capita but that's likely because they have no place to use them.

Given the general premise that socialism would be anti-yachting on principal, it's probably more a case of "in spite of" the socialist countries shown have lots of yacht ownership.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The USA is a big of an amalgamation. It's always tricking making a comparison to much smaller countries. Say you break out Florida (not particularly socialist), I'm betting the state would rank above any of the countries listed. By contrast, NY or California (generally considered to be more socialist while having good size cruisable coasts) will fall much lower than Florida. Then how do you factor in Illinois (falls more toward the socialist side) which has about 40 miles of Lake Michigan coast in the very NE corner of the state but even that isn't great cruising grounds as it's all built up with a relatively straight coastline with limited cruising options. Then you have conservative interior states like Nebraska where I'm betting they have almost no yachts per capita but that's likely because they have no place to use them.


Given the general premise that socialism would be anti-yachting on principal, it's probably more a case of "in spite of" the socialist countries shown have lots of yacht ownership.

This is just an indication that the word "socialist" has been abused to absurdity. The US Democratic party is not socialist. There's just about nowhere in the US where the government predominently follows the principles of actual socialist states found in the rest of the world. Bernie Sanders would not be considered particularly socialist if he was from just about any other country, save some authoritarian ones.

I guess it's all relative, of course. If most people lean right, than anyone advocating for public education or unemployment benefits will look like Karl Marx.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I'm hoping people realize you were joking but it is interesting data.

Yes... I forgot the . Tried to add it later, but missed my edit window. It's a single correlation that proves little. Looking only at this data one could equally conclude that countries that are more northern/southern have higher rates of yacht ownership. Lots of possible correlations. Nothing to be taken too seriously.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Given the general premise that socialism would be anti-yachting on principal, it's probably more a case of "in spite of" the socialist countries shown have lots of yacht ownership.

Socialism wouldn't be anti-yachting on principle. At a simplistic level, socialism attempts to even the playing field for ALL its citizens. So that could easily mean everyone gets a yacht.

But back in the real world, none of the countries listed are "socialist." The top four lean more to socialist policies than those below, but none are socialist. Just playing with this data (stress- play), the argument to explain higher yacht ownership in these countries could be because the more socially progressive policies of these countries afford their citizens greater financial freedom.