[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 06:54 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

If I assumed anything incorrectly, I apologize.

No need to apologize man. I don't take offense to any of this.

Quote:

There you go again - attempting to make this about me.

Jay, you said "a lot of us are suffering". I just took it the way you wrote it.

Quote:

We all give or take in various ways, and I am NOT claiming to be owed anything.

You made the comment about serving society. You are part of society, are you not?

Quote:

Contrarily, you, WWT (NO hating) seem to believe that you are owed less taxes, but if you work for finding various niches, you can find some tax loopholes, no? I have NO problem with that, but I do have problems if guys argue conclusively that somehow trickle down works, they do NOT provide any evidence of such (beyond bare assertions) when the evidence since the 80s seems clearly to be to the contrary.

Yes, you seem to have problems with wealthy people not paying enough taxes. I never mentioned trickle down economics. I mentioned that the wealthy are already paying 70% of all taxes brought in and you say it isn't enough.

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 06:58 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 06:50 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Sensitive?

I'll let you worry about everyone else and take care of my own. You have to wonder what life would be like if everyone would worry about taking care of themselves and not wait for someone else to save them.

So very sensitive. The feels!

Noone ever discussed worrying about anything. My original question to you was posed as follows:

Quote:

Do you think it's right...

I asked you a question about your ethics but your soapbox response just dances around some pretty condescending assumptions. Regardless, forget about it and enjoy the rest of your day.

No soapbox, it was my experiences and was posted to demonstrate where I was coming from. It wasn't a direct response to your question.

I would rather worry about what I can control than what I can't. The whole idea of fixing income disparity tends to be a slippery slope.

When does it stop? There will always be someone who doesn't make a lot of money crying it isn't fair.

People brought up income disparity so there must be some worry about it.

I don't take anything here bad, man. I hope you don't either and it wasn't my intention to be passive aggressive, condescending or just plain loveable. The loveable part is just hard to shake.

It isn't like I haven't been poor. I just didn't make excuses for it and knew it was up to me to change it. I didn't want anyone else to do it for me.

[Ensam]

It's not enough. Not even close. The wealthy should pay more in taxes because they have more to lose. The better off you are in society the more you have to lose if society falls apart. Wealth only has meaning in the context of the society you live in. Whatever lifestyle you lead only exists because there are people who are willing to do things for you in exchange for the for a portion of the wealth you've acquired. Property rights only exist because the society we live in protects them. When wealth distribution gets too out of whack people have a tendency to redistribute it regardless of how the wealthy feel about it. Historically those have not been pleasant times and many of the wealthy did not survive. I'd rather not see that happen in my lifetime or my childrens. The arrogance of people who are wealthier than me and assume that they'll be able to hold onto their wealth regardless of what happens in society is astonishing.

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 07:18 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

It's not enough. Not even close. The wealthy should pay more in taxes because they have more to lose. The better off you are in society the more you have to lose if society falls apart. Wealth only has meaning in the context of the society you live in. Whatever lifestyle you lead only exists because there are people who are willing to do things for you in exchange for the for a portion of the wealth you've acquired. Property rights only exist because the society we live in protects them. When wealth distribution gets too out of whack people have a tendency to redistribute it regardless of how the wealthy feel about it. Historically those have not been pleasant times and many of the wealthy did not survive. I'd rather not see that happen in my lifetime or my childrens. The arrogance of people who are wealthier than me and assume that they'll be able to hold onto their wealth regardless of what happens in society is astonishing.

We are talking about a world economy now and business are not constrained locally like they were in the past. You got Tech companies with billions sitting overseas. That is just sales from overseas and not from within the US economy. The ability to reach markets around the world is one of the reasons people have become wealthier.

The US lost a lot of manufacturing jobs because of it. I remember when a lot of IT jobs went overseas as well. I was a consultant at the time and saw jobs dry up over night.

This country needs to be more competitive to get those jobs back. You can't try and force companies to do business here but give them reasons to want do business here.

The US has had it good for too long but are slowly losing its edge and needs to entice instead of trying to squeeze out more juice.

[DVY]

Dividends should be very low % tax, and Cap Gains should be low % tax as well. All this money is money that has had taxes paid on it.

Over 50% of the population pays no tax (or recieves more money than tax they pay).

This whole tax thing is way overblown. There are tons of hidden taxes. In CA, I think taxes are prolly around 60-70% for high-income earners==40% federal, 10% state, 1% of gross (for LA city- so count it as 2-3% tax). Then add sales tax (10%) , internet tax, gas tax, water tax, natural gas tax, electricity tax, cellphone tax, airplane tax, service tax, police tickets, bureacratic city services (tax on business), FICA, social security, unemployment, business incorporation tax (800 dollars or 1% of gross- whichever is bigger). Its INSANE.

The most important thing is reducing entitlement spending. Government is one of the biggest sucks on private economy. I am long beyond the point that I think raising taxed will do ANYTHING. Its just more pie for the government to steal.

A crazy statistic from Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia" illuminate a big reason why healthcare costs are spiraling. The reasons are stunningly obvious yet none of the general population has any awareness. This was further highlighted w/my experiences from dental inudstry- Insurance Companies. 40% of all hospital costs go towards hiring staff to fill out paperwork for insurance companies. Insurance companies aren't stupid, they want to take in more money than they give out. They attempt to maximize paperwork, slowdown payment times (end of 90 days), reject claims, make obscure rules. All this does is run-up costs on administrative sides for hopsitals. They increase prices to cover this, and insurance tries to pay even less. Vicious cycle.

The whole argument of "doctors are greedy" or "hospital are greedy" may have some steam, but the vast inefficiency is with 3rd party payers who dictate circumstances. The funniest thing is we have made a synergy between government (poorly-run, inefficient, authocratic) with an insurance mafia. I foresee ever increasing fees, increasing wait-times, higher premiums, less pay to doctors, more administrative jobs to combat insurance companies and more administrative jobs at insurance companies to combat hospitals. Basically a Soviet-style economy which everybody has a menial job that basically does nothing.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 06:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 06:54 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

There you go again - attempting to make this about me.

Jay, you said "a lot of us are suffering". I just took it the way you wrote it.

This may be a product of my laziness in writing so much and my point may have gotten lost in the volume.

When I say that a lot of us are suffering, I am referring collectively to the “royal we”… .. anyhow, that American society is suffering for the lack of investments that have been occurring.

Nonetheless, I will stick to my assertion that you seem to want to read into the substance of my arguments in such ways as to make the arguments about me or about some bias that I may have. We all have our individual circumstances, and my particulars are likely NOT very relevant to the points that I am making. Your focusing on me seems to be an unnecessary diversion from the issue.

(12-26-2013 06:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote:

We all give or take in various ways, and I am NOT claiming to be owed anything.

You made the comment about serving society. You are part of society, are you not?

There is NO real substance, here. Yes, we all benefit from investments into the infrastructure – even though some guys believe that investment in infrastructure is NOT needed because it unfairly advantages the poor, the women and the weak. I try NOT to worry about these kinds of things because overall I would rather live in a society with infrastructure.

(12-26-2013 06:58 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote:

Contrarily, you, WWT (NO hating) seem to believe that you are owed less taxes, but if you work for finding various niches, you can find some tax loopholes, no? I have NO problem with that, but I do have problems if guys argue conclusively that somehow trickle down works, they do NOT provide any evidence of such (beyond bare assertions) when the evidence since the 80s seems clearly to be to the contrary.

Yes, you seem to have problems with wealthy people not paying enough taxes. I never mentioned trickle down economics. I mentioned that the wealthy are already paying 70% of all taxes brought in and you say it isn't enough.

You are correct, that I do have some problem with the wealthy NOT paying enough taxes, and NOW, we seem to be diverging into repetitiveness, because earlier I already answered your points. Additionally, in my view, there is NO specific formula exactly for how much who pays (but currently they are paying too little, that is for sure that I already made that point over and over). Ultimately, the American people should decide the details about how much exactly is paid, and.. right now, the people who are making the decision are not the american people and is only a few, as we all seem to already realize that the decisions are being called by monied interests of .01% as you seem to have already acknowledged and NOT by the American people.

(12-26-2013 07:24 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

We are talking about a world economy now and business are not constrained locally like they were in the past. You got Tech companies with billions sitting overseas. That is just sales from overseas and not from within the US economy. The ability to reach markets around the world is one of the reasons people have become wealthier.

The US lost a lot of manufacturing jobs because of it. I remember when a lot of IT jobs went overseas as well. I was a consultant at the time and saw jobs dry up over night.

This country needs to be more competitive to get those jobs back. You can't try and force companies to do business here but give them reasons to want do business here.

The US has had it good for too long but are slowly losing its edge and needs to entice instead of trying to squeeze out more juice.

This exitus of wealth and production from the US was NOT an accident, it was a political creation that came in large ways through Clinton’s NAFTA and was begun in those times. Anyhow, the global ecomony and the mobility of capital is NOT inevitable, and we, as a country, DO NOT have to engage in race to the bottom with companies to beg for companies to stay on their terms - that is a figment of the imagination of people to suggest that governments do NOT have power. Companied interests want to cause Govt to be so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, and that is NOT reality of the current situation (even though frequently govt is divided and unfocused in having the balls to stand up against big companies but companies create that govtmental weakness). The US Govt is sufficiently powerful to be able to disallow the mobility of capital if it were able to focus and exercise will and possibly even military, but in some sense we, as a govt, have painted ourselves into a corner by allowing such capital mobility and flight to take place for so long that it will become more and more difficult to put some of that toothpaste back into the tube.. It’s NOT going to be a pretty picture… and NONE of these kinds of changes are coming soon.

[jimukr104]

Ok....those who supported a flat tax were mostly the rich..flat taxes would have screwed low income, most middle class and retirees even more. It was not moral... Being equitable isn't FAIR. They are Not 2 of the same thing.Since the rich basically set the whole wage structure they definitely should and have to pay more..and they do. Our present system works. Although i think they should fund social security better by taxing all wage income fro mit since the highest payers get the bigger amount anyway.
But ultimately you can only tax the rich so much. Don't want to make fun of EU but you got countries where a large % of population wants to freeload off the workers...that isn't right.Most socialized Euro countries including Canada have even larger issues coming due to their high tax brackets...they have reached the max and you can't raise it much. I once read how EU countries VATS had gone up as country needed more money. All these BS socialized programs need to stop. Do you realize some of your money pays for feminist groups?
The dumb Democrats seem Not to believe in the tinkle down effect but in the end all they do is bankrupt cities, states. Detroit and Chicago are good examples of Democrat leadership.
One of the reasons the US economy hasn't improved greatly(they lying about it btw) is due to Obamacare. Businesses are refusing to hire and cutting hours. He started a program that will only make insurance companies rich and NOT solve the real issues.
As for infrastructure...irrelevant topic since most infrastructure is the responsibility of mulnicipal governments. This isn't Europe lol. Each state and city makes its own roads, sanitation, and even public transportation.This is where part of the corruption comes from. Most people(excluding property taxes) pay more taxes to Fed gov't .But the bulk of our dailiy service is provided by local gov't and since the fed squeezes so much tax funds from folks there isn't much to squeeze.Why isn't the Feds bailing out Detroit? Fucking pensions at stake(can't trust gov't who can you trust?)..that never happen in EU since the national budget would come in to help.
My solution is that let the FEDS concentrate on national security(make cuts) and that it.That was all the original us gov't was surpose to do..the constitution even forbid the coinage of currency at the fed level. Reduce everyone's taxes accordingly and let the local government get the money. We will then see improvements like you would never believe. The FED gov't is even more irresponsible than local gov't with tax revenue..but the fed can print money,cities can't.
roads paid by state
libraries=state
police,fireman. teacher's =state
The only useful paid feds are the mailmen tbh.
Get rid of corrupt FDA..save money.
Fema is incompetant.Get rid of them. In New Orleans NYPD FDNY,sent a few hundred cops to help out. Fema did crap.

But better question why do we want better infrastructure here? lol...most guys here want out..let the American women and beta guys who remain deal with the infrastructure. Personally I HATE paying taxes and often think of giving up citizenship because just the thought of those crack head gals and ghetto thugs surviving on my funds makes me bitter.
Our taxes goes to save the whales(i am talking the 2 footed kind), save the feminists, save the gay marriages, protecting hollywood dvds and supporting prisoners for life in prison.Cheaper to just line em up and shoot em if you ask me and more humane!In NYS it costs 100k per year per prisoner.
Did I add that financial crimes and crimes against women get guys punished more than the original sins?

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 07:45 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

This exitus of wealth and production from the US was NOT an accident, it was a political creation that came in large ways through Clinton’s NAFTA and was begun in those times. Anyhow, the global ecomony and the mobility of capital is NOT inevitable, and we, as a country, DO NOT have to engage in race to the bottom with companies to beg for companies to stay on their terms - that is a figment of the imagination of people to suggest that governments do NOT have power. Companied interests want to cause Govt to be so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, and that is NOT reality of the current situation (even though frequently govt is divided and unfocused in having the balls to stand up against big companies but companies create that govtmental weakness). The US Govt is sufficiently powerful to be able to disallow the mobility of capital if it were able to focus and exercise will and possibly even military, but in some sense we, as a govt, have painted ourselves into a corner by allowing such capital mobility and flight to take place for so long that it will become more and more difficult to put some of that toothpaste back into the tube.. It’s NOT going to be a pretty picture… and NONE of these kinds of changes are coming soon.

I disagree. They could try to stop it but it would end up making things far worst for the US in the end. The US can't stop a company from going overseas. If they try to bully them through the financial sector, they will end up losing more and more power as companies and governments start bypassing the US entirely.

I remember reading an article about people starting tech companies here instead of overseas. It was mainly because it was easier but that also implied if things got tougher then it would warrant starting those companies overseas. There is a tipping point when it comes to these things.

There has been Congressional meetings when it came to companies using the Double Irish tax schemes. The US even tried to push Ireland (even accusing them of creating illegal tax shelters) which had no effect at all.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 07:51 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 07:45 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

This exitus of wealth and production from the US was NOT an accident, it was a political creation that came in large ways through Clinton’s NAFTA and was begun in those times. Anyhow, the global ecomony and the mobility of capital is NOT inevitable, and we, as a country, DO NOT have to engage in race to the bottom with companies to beg for companies to stay on their terms - that is a figment of the imagination of people to suggest that governments do NOT have power. Companied interests want to cause Govt to be so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, and that is NOT reality of the current situation (even though frequently govt is divided and unfocused in having the balls to stand up against big companies but companies create that govtmental weakness). The US Govt is sufficiently powerful to be able to disallow the mobility of capital if it were able to focus and exercise will and possibly even military, but in some sense we, as a govt, have painted ourselves into a corner by allowing such capital mobility and flight to take place for so long that it will become more and more difficult to put some of that toothpaste back into the tube.. It’s NOT going to be a pretty picture… and NONE of these kinds of changes are coming soon.

I disagree. They could try to stop it but it would end up making things far worst for the US in the end. The US can't stop a company from going overseas. If they try to bully them through the financial sector, they will end up losing more and more power as companies and governments start bypassing the US entirely.

I remember reading an article about people starting tech companies here instead of overseas. It was mainly because it was easier but that also implied if things got tougher then it would warrant starting those companies overseas. There is a tipping point when it comes to these things.

There has been many meetings when it came to companies using the Double Irish tax schemes. The US even tried to push Ireland (even accusing them of creating illegal tax shelters) which had no effect at all.

I agree that the capital flight question may be much beyond my ability to grasp how to control it, exactly. But, I do know that we, as a country, do NOT want to get into a position in which we are "competing" for companies in some race to the bottom bullshit. In any event those are more reasons to have infrastructure in America in order that companies want to locate here. Though, I am NOT going to argue with you, here b/c currently, I do NOT have some kind of comprehensive plan that would accomplish being able to control capital... currently, the USA seems to be of the belief that it is of the US interest to paper international companies.... take the TPP for example, which is only going to do more to screw american workers to compete with the wages of low paid asian workers.

[jimukr104]

"You are correct, that I do have some problem with the wealthy NOT paying enough taxes, and NOW, we seem to be diverging into repetitiveness, because earlier I already answered your points. Additionally, in my view, there is NO specific formula exactly for how much who pays (but currently they are paying too little, that is for sure that I already made that point over and over). Ultimately, the American people should decide the details about how much exactly is paid, and.. right now, the people who are making the decision are not the american people and is only a few, as we all seem to already realize that the decisions are being called by monied interests of .01% as you seem to have already acknowledged and NOT by the American people. "


BS.... believe it or NOT America was originally suppose to be a Republic with checks and balances NOT a Democratic nation.Pledge of Aliigiance confims that!
Our founding fathers knew that Democracies don't work and burn themselves down. giving THE majority WILL PREFERENCE never works. One of them even said that there isn't much difference from a single despot or 51% majority.The problem should be obvious. There will always be more poor than rich in EVERY society. A society that listens to the majority will always be about taking away from the few that have(like Obama is doing). In the end majority hates jews...lets kill jews. Majority hates rich...kill rich. Majority(one day will not be white") hates whites..kill whites. That's always been the problem of listening to the will of the PEOPLE.Minorities aren't protected. Even the middle class a century ago was a minority.
Interestly enough when these majority uprisings takes place...the nations tend to dip into more poverty and wars!
Don't get me wrong politicians on both sides are getting bribed by the rich..but like I SAID it still better than be swooned by the majority. The rich have an invested interest that society doesn't go into the dark ages..unfortunately the masses aren't that smart to do things to avoid that.I mean for crissakes the American public has got to be the stupidest voters on the earth(after Ukrainians). they pay more attention to social issues like feminism, abortion, gay marriages than about voting for folks who will actually improve their standard of living.
War in Iraq was a good example of using the masses for approval..costing trillions.
they have done studies. People would rather take cows away from those who have more just to make everyone equal than to actually allow the rich to have more cows and they also have more.Its human nature.
Incidently the stock bubble is benefiting the rich the most since they have the most stock..but its being done to boost up the avg persons house value and 401k. The real losers here(ME ) are the ones who honestly earned our money and saved/invested wisely. its the avg citizen who fucking thought they had a right to buy a home with money they barely had and take those loan conditions not realizing rates would go up. The bankers did their jobs...it was our avg countrymen who did what they did. I have a solution? if folks would stop running up debt to buy a new phone every year, etc maybe more folks would invest and become rich??

Read a book called the millionaire next door..it will open your eyes. Most rich got rich because of their individual work,effort and frugality.

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 08:03 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

I agree that the capital flight question may be much beyond my ability to grasp how to control it, exactly. But, I do know that we, as a country, do NOT want to get into a position in which we are "competing" for companies in some race to the bottom bullshit. In any event those are more reasons to have infrastructure in America in order that companies want to locate here. Though, I am NOT going to argue with you, here b/c currently, I do NOT have some kind of comprehensive plan that would accomplish being able to control capital... currently, the USA seems to be of the belief that it is of the US interest to paper international companies.... take the TPP for example, which is only going to do more to screw american workers to compete with the wages of low paid asian workers.

A lot of those IT jobs that went overseas eventually came back. I believe it was a quality issue.

Instead of trying to control things, it would be much better if the US developed a competitive edge. No different then what businesses have to do. Higher taxes and strict laws won't do it. Not in today's world.

It could be higher qualified workforce (pushing kids into certain fields by offering loans or some incentive for that field of study), lower corporate tax rates that would take out places like Ireland, easier accounting or tax laws, better infrastructure like you suggested, access to funding for expansion (one of the reasons IT companies still start here is because of funding) etc...

[Feisbook Control]

Firstly, anyone who truly thinks increasing taxes would solve any problem needs to look at this.

This isn't even an ideological issue. It's a practical issue, a matter of incentives. When approximately 50% of the population of the U.S. is grabbing all that they can with both hands at the bottom end, when those at the top are "too big to fail", those in the middle will react too, but not how people might expect.

There is a whole movement of people, including a fair number of people at this forum, I suspect, actively engaging in this. Unless you're willing to create a complete authoritarian state (which, ironically, would lead to massive wealth disparity), the horse has already bolted. Some of us do indeed realise what a sucker's game being in the middle class is, but our response is a big dose of unintended consequences. What's 50%, 60%, 70% (take your pick, hell, make it 100% tax) of 0? Just like with fat, obnoxious chicks, we're looking around and saying, "Nah, screw this for a game, I'm outta here". That is the destruction of the middle class because the incentives on being a productive, successful member of society (particularly male) just aren't there in many Western nations anymore. There are greener pastures and we're heading for them. I swear that every time someone mentions these (quasi-)socialistic ideas Singapore and others get 100 new applicants for opening bank accounts or getting a passport.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 08:07 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Read a book called the millionaire next door..it will open your eyes. Most rich got rich because of their individual work,effort and frugality.

It's one thing to argue how individuals can prosper within a society, and another thing to argue how to set up the society to allow for such prosperity. I don't disagree with aspects of your post regarding potential problems with majority rule, but we need to attempt some semblance of democracy, rather than moneyocracy. So, the current problem, is that there is too much money in politics that is calling the shots in too narrow of a way.... and we need policies and practices in order to benefit society as a whole to create jobs for the shrinking middle class.

(12-26-2013 08:07 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

A lot of those IT jobs that went overseas eventually came back. I believe it was a quality issue.

Instead of trying to control things, it would be much better if the US developed a competitive edge. No different then what businesses have to do. Higher taxes and strict laws won't do it. Not in today's world.

WWT: Generally, I agree with you that the US has potential to attract and retain brains, yet you are NOT going to trick me into agreeing to LOWER taxes as the solution... NOT...

America still has potential for broad appeal, including a decent research and higher education system... except to the extent that research and education system will be run to the ground too, if we do NOT continue to build and invest in it which is a political govt priority b/c private sector is NOT going to do those kinds of investments on their own... additionally, investments in medicine also can be innovative in america... .

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 08:19 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

WWT: Generally, I agree with you that the US has potential to attract and retain brains, yet you are NOT going to trick me into agreeing to LOWER taxes as the solution... NOT...

ha! Well I tried.

Quote:

America still has potential for broad appeal, including a decent research and higher education system... except to the extent that research and education system will be run to the ground too, if we do NOT continue to build and invest in it which is a political govt priority b/c private sector is NOT going to do those kinds of investments on their own... additionally, investments in medicine also can be innovative in america... .

Healthcare should be interesting to watch after Obamacare takes hold.

The city I am from was built on the back of car manufacturing. That was shut down and now the major employers is healthcare and a service industry. It wasn't a good replacement for the city and the city seems to be slowly dying.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 08:18 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Firstly, anyone who truly thinks increasing taxes would solve any problem needs to look at this.

This isn't even an ideological issue. It's a practical issue, a matter of incentives. When approximately 50% of the population of the U.S. is grabbing all that they can with both hands at the bottom end, when those at the top are "too big to fail", those in the middle will react too, but not how people might expect.

There is a whole movement of people, including a fair number of people at this forum, I suspect, actively engaging in this. Unless you're willing to create a complete authoritarian state (which, ironically, would lead to massive wealth disparity), the horse has already bolted. Some of us do indeed realise what a sucker's game being in the middle class is, but our response is a big dose of unintended consequences. What's 50%, 60%, 70% (take your pick, hell, make it 100% tax) of 0? Just like with fat, obnoxious chicks, we're looking around and saying, "Nah, screw this for a game, I'm outta here". That is the destruction of the middle class because the incentives on being a productive, successful member of society (particularly male) just aren't there in many Western nations anymore. There are greener pastures and we're heading for them. I swear that every time someone mentions these (quasi-)socialistic ideas Singapore and others get 100 new applicants for opening bank accounts or getting a passport.

Some americans are willing and able to live mobily, but others are NOT going to be willing, ready and able to do it. We will see how this ability of americans to be mobile plays out over the years. I doubt that it is as big of a factor as you are making it out to be - though I do know that a lot of guys in RVF, including myself, are considering ways to live mobily outside of the USA.

(12-26-2013 08:24 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Healthcare should be interesting to watch after Obamacare takes hold.

Yeah, I believe that obamacare is NOT all that negative as people are making it out to be. There are going to be a lot of investment and money making opportunities with this. How long it will last, and how it will play out is another story.

Personally, I think that manufacturing etc is better than medical b/c it is NOT so easy to export and import medical.. but it is NOT impossible for the US to remain competitive in that medical sector.

[jimukr104]

(12-26-2013 08:18 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Firstly, anyone who truly thinks increasing taxes would solve any problem needs to look at this.

This isn't even an ideological issue. It's a practical issue, a matter of incentives. When approximately 50% of the population of the U.S. is grabbing all that they can with both hands at the bottom end, when those at the top are "too big to fail", those in the middle will react too, but not how people might expect.

There is a whole movement of people, including a fair number of people at this forum, I suspect, actively engaging in this. Unless you're willing to create a complete authoritarian state (which, ironically, would lead to massive wealth disparity), the horse has already bolted. Some of us do indeed realise what a sucker's game being in the middle class is, but our response is a big dose of unintended consequences. What's 50%, 60%, 70% (take your pick, hell, make it 100% tax) of 0? Just like with fat, obnoxious chicks, we're looking around and saying, "Nah, screw this for a game, I'm outta here". That is the destruction of the middle class because the incentives on being a productive, successful member of society (particularly male) just aren't there in many Western nations anymore. There are greener pastures and we're heading for them. I swear that every time someone mentions these (quasi-)socialistic ideas Singapore and others get 100 new applicants for opening bank accounts or getting a passport.

Agreed....most tax increases will screw the middle-class in the end. Even Obama hurt the middle class mostly. Its the largest group.. certainly larger than the rich so as a group will pay more.
Interestingly the unions must regret they voted for him.. he has weakened them more than any group. Eventually the poor will have more than the middle class.

[Feisbook Control]

(12-26-2013 08:25 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

Some americans are willing and able to live mobily, but others are NOT going to be willing, ready and able to do it. We will see how this ability of americans to be mobile plays out over the years. I doubt that it is as big of a factor as you are making it out to be - though I do know that a lot of guys in RVF, including myself, are considering ways to live mobily outside of the USA.

I disagree entirely. Firstly, expatriation is a booming business as are related things such as medical tourism, foreign brides, etc. There are lots of countries around the world, particularly in SEA and Latin America, that are actively courting Western retirees. People may be stupid, but they're not that stupid and they can sniff out a good deal. Much of the West simply isn't a good deal anymore. There are huge communities of Western retirees in many such countries now, and these countries run the gamut from being highly developed (e.g. Singapore) downwards. Take your pick; there is a niche for anyone depending upon their lifestyle desires and their wealth levels. I know people here in Taiwan whom I suspect would be Democrat voters back in the U.S. who live in Taiwan because of tax, cost of living and medical issues. Their money goes much farther here. These people are very middle class (the wife is/was a teacher). It's not that they're unpatriotic or any of that. They love America (they have a flag hanging outside their house here), they just don't like what it's become or what it wants to do to them. That people expatriating are at least as often these kinds of people as guys who take their yachts to the French Riviera has been a major own goal on the part of the U.S. and other developed nations.

The other thing is if you look at the last line of the chart on that Wikipedia article on the extent of money in tax havens you will see something pretty alarming that confirms the above.

Worldwide, people with under $1 million (USD) have about $10.3 trillion in liquid net worth. $1 trillion of that is offshore. That's almost ten percent! For even wealthier people, it is an even higher percentage. Regardless though, having $1 million is not even a lot of money these days. That's ~$40,000/year to live off at safe withdrawal rates. An income of ~$40,000/year lands you pretty squarely in the middle class (maybe even lower middle class) in retirement in many developed nations now. You don't think it's a really bad sign that about 10% of middle class wealth has done a runner now?

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 08:49 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 08:25 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

Some americans are willing and able to live mobily, but others are NOT going to be willing, ready and able to do it. We will see how this ability of americans to be mobile plays out over the years. I doubt that it is as big of a factor as you are making it out to be - though I do know that a lot of guys in RVF, including myself, are considering ways to live mobily outside of the USA.

I disagree entirely. Firstly, expatriation is a booming business as are related things such as medical tourism, foreign brides, etc. There are lots of countries around the world, particularly in SEA and Latin America, that are actively courting Western retirees. People may be stupid, but they're not that stupid and they can sniff out a good deal. Much of the West simply isn't a good deal anymore. There are huge communities of Western retirees in many such countries now, and these countries run the gamut from being highly developed (e.g. Singapore) downwards. Take your pick; there is a niche for anyone depending upon their lifestyle desires and their wealth levels. I know people here in Taiwan whom I suspect would be Democrat voters back in the U.S. who live in Taiwan because of tax, cost of living and medical issues. Their money goes much farther here. These people are very middle class (the wife is/was a teacher). It's not that they're unpatriotic or any of that. They love America (they have a flag hanging outside their house here), they just don't like what it's become or what it wants to do to them. That people expatriating are at least as often these kinds of people as guys who take their yachts to the French Riviera has been a major own goal on the part of the U.S. and other developed nations.

The other thing is if you look at the last line of the chart on that Wikipedia article on the extent of money in tax havens you will see something pretty alarming that confirms the above.

Worldwide, people with under $1 million (USD) have about $10.3 trillion in liquid net worth. $1 trillion of that is offshore. That's almost ten percent! For even wealthier people, it is an even higher percentage. Regardless though, having $1 million is not even a lot of money these days. That's ~$40,000/year to live off at safe withdrawal rates. An income of ~$40,000/year lands you pretty squarely in the middle class (maybe even lower middle class) in retirement in many developed nations now. You don't think it's a really bad sign that about 10% of middle class wealth has done a runner now?

I concede that you make a fair argument that the amount of money offshore is substantial; however, I doubt that there is any major exidus from america.... even though 1/10 dollars is off shore, there appear to be fewer than 1 or 2 /100 americans who are off shore. Probably the number could be going up; however, the question is whether the number is going to become a significant factor in the future? and, if so, what kinds of controls are going to be attempted for such? I have NO idea, but probably, you are correct that modern technology makes this off shore living easier to accomplish.

Since you like to cite wikipedea. Here's one in your direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_diaspora

[worldwidetraveler]

(12-26-2013 09:09 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

I concede that you make a fair argument that the amount of money offshore is substantial; however, I doubt that there is any major exidus from america.... even though 1/10 dollars is off shore, there appear to be fewer than 1 or 2 /100 americans who are off shore. Probably the number could be going up; however, the question is whether the number is going to become a significant factor in the future? and, if so, what kinds of controls are going to be attempted for such? I have NO idea, but probably, you are correct that modern technology makes this off shore living easier to accomplish.

Since you like to cite wikipedea. Here's one in your direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_diaspora

"It's estimated that U.S. corporations have more than $2 trillion in offshore earnings that are not being taxed by the U.S."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13...hauls.html

Now 2 trillion is some major cheddar.

[Feisbook Control]

JJG: Of course, that's a good link you provided. Honestly, I really could be completely wrong in my pessimism here and anything I say is all speculation, but it's still worrying, I think. I am still trying to hedge my bets. The world is a very, very different place to how it was even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the comfortable, middle class lifestyles of many in the developed West may be the historical aberration and we may be seeing some sort of regression to the historical mean. I just don't want to be on the wrong side of history by hitching a ride on a sinking ship. Nothing lasts forever. It would pain me deeply if the West (including America) were to decline, both in a broader philosophical sense, but also because I know people who would be affected. Yet I am not optimistic and I don't want to be taken for a sucker all the same.

I suspect that the number of Americans abroad will increase due to one reason alone: most Americans simply don't have enough money to retire on. They are going to find themselves in a real squeeze financially, particularly if their money is not liquid (e.g. tied up in real estate, particularly real estate that they might not be able to sell easily). Other places are going to look more attractive. Of course, another response might be to enact more socialism, but that's probably only going to accelerate the death spiral because it will disproportionately affect the very people it would supposedly be meant to help. Any legislation to stop capital flight will be completely ineffective as the people with the real money will know it's coming months before it ever gets to the House floor and they will have ample time to get out or, a la Cyprus, exceptions will be made whilst everyone else's money is frozen. The worse things become for the middle class, the more edgy the middle class will become until at some point there might very well be a bolt for the exits. Or it might not even be as dramatic as that. Middle class people might stop doing the things that historically used to work for them, e.g. starting a business or going to college.

The other thing we need to consider is the relative composition of society. Let's say the number of people abroad stays the same in absolute terms, say at 3-6 million people. It's one thing if the middle class is, for example, 150 million people, so such people represent 2-4% of the population. Now imagine the middle class shrinks to 100 million people (even ignoring the growth of the absolute population of the nation). Now those 3-6 million people are, in some sense, 1.5 times as important. Again, you could get a death spiral where the middle class don't exist in large enough numbers to actually hold society together functionally.

A society functions because everyone believes they have a stake in society. In the short term, they sacrifice their selfish needs, delay gratification, etc., but in the long term, society as a whole improves and those individual actors also benefit from that. Once people, particularly the middle class, lose that feeling, then all bets are off and you descend rapidly into a "me and mine" dysfunctional society with a lot of cases of the tragedy of the commons because it actually becomes irrational/detrimental to not be entirely self-serving in the short term. Of course, in the long term, that's utterly disastrous.

There is clearly a crisis at the heart of society in many Western nations, I think we're both in agreement on that. I don't know how these crises will get solved (and they may not get solved in all cases, or the cure may be worse than the disease), but I think that we honestly can't begin looking at the 1% without simultaneously really addressing the 47% (or whatever it is) and everything that surrounds them. I believe it's not just financial, that the broader culture is corrupted. I am being somewhat prescriptive, but I'm mostly just trying to be descriptive. Saying "tax rich people" is kind of non-sensical if for individuals with more than $30 million, more than half their wealth has already fled and so on down that chart.

[Jaydublin]

(12-26-2013 05:14 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

And you are suggesting that the creation of jobs is NOT a goal of companies, and probably, we differ in that regard. I understand that companies can do whatever they want for the benefit of their shareholders; however, in my current thinking, if companies are NOT providing social good, such as jobs, then we as a society may consider that their licenses (charters) should be taken away. Devils in the details, here.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this but it sounds like you think one of the goals people have when they take on huge personal risk to start a business should be to provide jobs for other people. Am I reading this right?

And as I have told you before. The private sector WILL provide capital and jobs but ONLY when the price is right. You confuse the private sector refusing to invest with them not wanting to make terrible investments. When the price is right, they will buy.

[Bushido]

(12-26-2013 05:14 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

And you are suggesting that the creation of jobs is NOT a goal of companies, and probably, we differ in that regard. I understand that companies can do whatever they want for the benefit of their shareholders; however, in my current thinking, if companies are NOT providing social good, such as jobs, then we as a society may consider that their licenses (charters) should be taken away. Devils in the details, here.

I see where you are coming from but your good intentions are mistaken in my opinion.

Profit DOES provide a social good. A profitable company will create jobs either directly or indirectly. I'm not going to explain the economics to you because I think you already know how it works. If you don't then a quick read of the following might help:

http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_...azlitt.pdf

The aim here is to build prosperity, not create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. That gets you nowhere in the long run and forcing companies to do it is antidemocratic in itself.

As this thread illustrates, our tax systems are a fucking joke. They are so complex that entire industries are based on exploiting their loopholes. It's ridiculous. This is an example of how a HUGE amount capital is allocated to activities that offer no value whatsoever to the real economy. Even banking has a better claim to value addition than "tax consultants" and their ilk (no offence to anyone who works in that industry). Western governments should throw out the tax book and start over with something based on consumption such as the Fair Tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Of course, this will never happen in the US/UK because of all the vested interests involved but it would be interesting if a major economy adopted it. I can only dream.

While we debate about increasing taxation and government schemes to create jobs, Asia is slowly but surely liberalizing and following the Singapore model. It doesn't take a genius to see why massive amounts of capital are flowing there. Taxing the rich will only increase this effect.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-26-2013 10:24 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

JJG: Of course, that's a good link you provided. Honestly, I really could be completely wrong in my pessimism here and anything I say is all speculation, but it's still worrying, I think. I am still trying to hedge my bets. The world is a very, very different place to how it was even a couple of decades ago.

FeisbookC:

I am a little bit confused about your perspective in that your profile says you are from australia living in the Taiwan, but you are speaking as if from the American perspective.

It seems that you and I are NOT really thinking that differently about the potential problem more and more Americans living abroad and even potentially how we may respond on an individual level b/c there is only so much that we cannot control regarding the system, but we can control our own response to it. Like you said, we can hedge our bets, so to speak by having our fingers in several pots, and maybe we are young enough, mobile enough and NOT tied down enough to accomplish sufficient mobility to be hedged. Part of my original point was that many times, people get really attached geographically in a lot of different ways career, family, property and are NOT going to be able to be geographically mobile… NOT without a lot of inconvenience.

The solution to the various problems in America and the upcoming downfall and all that is a whole other story, and really, I do NOT claim to be any expert or to have any answers. I do predict, however, that the downfall is NOT going to be in the next 10 to 15 years… maybe 30 years, but who knows with these goofball politicians and crazy unpredictable things involving many actors (who are sometimes unpredictable).

You may be correct that the horse has left the stall regarding the outsourcing of America and its wealth and we may NOT be able to recuperate in such a way to bring us back to the taxes of the 50s or the 60s b/c we live in a much different world, especially with various technologies and global mobility. In the end, though, the wealthy and those from wealthy countries, are much more mobile than the poor and those from poorer countries.. so there is quite a bit of value in holding an american passport... for the time being.

(12-26-2013 11:04 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(12-26-2013 05:14 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

And you are suggesting that the creation of jobs is NOT a goal of companies, and probably, we differ in that regard. I understand that companies can do whatever they want for the benefit of their shareholders; however, in my current thinking, if companies are NOT providing social good, such as jobs, then we as a society may consider that their licenses (charters) should be taken away. Devils in the details, here.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this but it sounds like you think one of the goals people have when they take on huge personal risk to start a business should be to provide jobs for other people. Am I reading this right?

I think that you are reading my statement too simply.

I am speaking quite broadly in the above quote in characterizing that sometimes large corporations are NOT socially responsible, and when that happens, there are public recourse, such as taking away their charters.

Generally speaking, I believe that small businesses frequently get screwed and over regulated and need a lot more freedom from governmental oversight. Generally, smaller businesses are NOT the ones that are exploiting and/or bullying communities with the various tactics that some large corporations pull from time to time. Also, I am NOT painting all large corporations as being bad b/c they are operating within the regulatory scheme that they are in... so that regulatory scheme can be modified when it is NOT accomplishing social goods.

Certainly NOT all companies have goals to create jobs, and that might be how the business of those companies are structured, but companies do get licenses (charters) to operate. In sum, I am NOT anti-company, just asserting the need for companies to be accountable to the community in which they operate. And, I agree that some companies may NOT have to create jobs because it may NOT be part of their business objective.

(12-26-2013 11:04 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

And as I have told you before. The private sector WILL provide capital and jobs but ONLY when the price is right. You confuse the private sector refusing to invest with them not wanting to make terrible investments. When the price is right, they will buy.

Jay Dub:

If you are referring to some place that you have taught me about something then maybe you should link to that b/c that informational piece is NOT a part of this thread.

I doubt that we are talking about some kind of world that is a one size fits all, and companies act in different kinds of ways depending on their size and their goals and the regulatory environment and sometimes even politics, believe it or NOT.

Earlier in this thread, I had made statements about capital strike going on since 2007 2008-ish, and likely that capital strike is mostly with the banks getting cheap money and failing/refusing to lend that cheap money to small businesses, home owners etc etc. NOT all sectors of business are engaged in this capital strike that seems to be taking place. For example, in health industry there seems to be money to make, and various kinds of investments going on in the health industry, but also some weird political conduct as well is going on in the health industry based on various hostility towards obamacare... anyhow, my point is that there is NO one size fits all.

(12-27-2013 12:17 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

The aim here is to build prosperity, not create jobs for the sake of creating jobs. That gets you nowhere in the long run and forcing companies to do it is antidemocratic in itself.

Actually at this moment in history, and for about the past 5 years, America has been going through an economic crisis, and that crisis has NOT really affected the vary well to do companies because they have been streamlining jobs by the millions. That is that these large companies have been able to screw millions of Americans for the sake of profits, and they were NOT able to do the same in Germany because the Unions were too strong. Here, Americans got screwed because Unions and politicians were too weak to stop them from engaging in that economy wrecking conduct.

In essence there has been a jobs crisis since about 2007 or 2008, and accordingly the solution to a jobs crisis is the creation of jobs. If the private sector will NOT create those jobs, then the govt must step in to do such. Now, maybe everyone does NOT agree that there really is a job crisis, then if that is the case, then jobs do NOT need to be created.
I am NOT saying to create jobs merely for the sake of creating jobs. I was saying that jobs must be created because there seems to have been a job crisis in America since about 2007 or 2008-ish – too many unemployed and NOT enough positions for them to fill and accordingly a large number of the positions that have been filled are at ½ the payrate that these americans were previously receiving…. That is called redistribution of wealth from the middle to the top of what used to be wages.

Actually, I am NOT very strict in my thinking about how to accomplish the objective of the creation of more jobs and better wages in America, but another way to increase wages is to make it easier for employees to unionize, which would help to cause increases in wages and benefits rather than the government forcing such job creation to give power to the people to pester the creation. Another possibility, if companies want to withhold their capital to create incentives for the creation of worker run cooperatives, in which company abandoned faciltities can be used for manufacturing and production that is NOT being accomplished by these companies that are withholding their capital. There has been too much idle equipment and facilities in the last 5 years or so because companies have been withholding production… and probably sending some of their free capital to China and other overseas location, such as your Singapore suggestion.

(12-27-2013 12:17 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

As this thread illustrates, our tax systems are a fucking joke. They are so complex that entire industries are based on exploiting their loopholes. It's ridiculous. This is an example of how a HUGE amount capital is allocated to activities that offer no value whatsoever to the real economy. Even banking has a better claim to value addition than "tax consultants" and their ilk (no offence to anyone who works in that industry). Western governments should throw out the tax book and start over with something based on consumption such as the Fair Tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I am NOT opposed to proposals to simplify the US tax code system and to remove loopholes and complications in the various US taxes, yet I am skeptical of any “tax reduction” system that lumps social security into that simplification and suggests that social security is part of the problem, when in fact social security is one of the best tax / govt programs ever established, world-wide. Social Security is very efficient and over the years has run at a surplus and has developed a current surplus of trillions of dollars (at least on paper). There seems to be a major problem in suggesting to just throw all that efficiency and good out the door and to start over without one of the best govt programs ever developed… so I have a problem with a framework that discounts the value of the US Social Security system. Otherwise, I am NOT opposed to simplification and removal of tax loopholes. Nonetheless, I remain skeptical of various proposals to tax on a flat tax basis – for reasons that I have already discussed in my previous posts (which in essence the rich need to pay more, and that is what is fair).

(12-27-2013 12:17 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

Of course, this will never happen in the US/UK because of all the vested interests involved but it would be interesting if a major economy adopted it. I can only dream.

Well, I suppose that your NAME is DREAM BIG for a reason, no? A guy cannot fault someone for having BIG aspirations, especially if those BIG aspirations are well intended.

(12-27-2013 12:17 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

While we debate about increasing taxation and government schemes to create jobs, Asia is slowly but surely liberalizing and following the Singapore model. It doesn't take a genius to see why massive amounts of capital are flowing there. Taxing the rich will only increase this effect.

You are suggesting that race to the bottom is the solution, which in my thinking a race to the bottom is NOT the solution. America has a lot to offer, and actually a lot of American money is also going to China because China has been making a lot of investments into their future, such as speed trains and other infrastructure investments. The US could also attract investors with a little creativity, and in my humble opinion, that attraction of investors does NOT automatically mean that there is a need to get rid of all or most taxes in order to sell ourselves down the river.

[Feisbook Control]

JJG: I am Australian, living in Taiwan. There are multiple reasons I have mostly written about the U.S. in this thread. Firstly, more people are American here. Secondly, I believe the U.S. is further down the rabbit hole than Australia (more below), but it's where we're all headed eventually unless we course correct.

From all that I have read, I think that of all of the Anglophone countries, the U.S. and U.K. seem to be in the worst shape long term. I think they're in real trouble, actually. There seems to be a very marked distinction between socio-economic classes in those two countries that doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bad in Australia or Canada, and the middle class in the U.S. and U.K. seem to be under real pressure. There's a lot of debt in those countries. Their education systems are bad compared to Canada or Australia, and they seem to be doing immigration in all the wrong ways. Basically, the U.S. and the U.K. seem to have either actively opened the floodgates, or turned a blind eye, to the dregs of the third world. They are being swamped by people who will be/are a massive drain on social services and thus, (more) productive members of their societies. On the other hand, Canada and Australia have much more sensible immigration policies, probably to the point that the average immigrant who now gets let in is actually smarter and harder working than the average local. That's a net gain, and those countries should remain competitive and prosperous going forwards. Feminism and general cultural Marxism seem to be at their cutting edge in the U.S. in particular too. It just seems to me that in virtually every way, from economics to culture, the U.S. and U.K. are trying to hit the self-destruct button. It's bizarre to me and it's hard to see how the U.S. and U.K. will turn around from the self-destructive policies and institutions they now have. Sure, there will always be some really smart people there, but lots of places have some really smart people and the rest of the population are pretty much useless. That doesn't make for great countries to live in unless you're super loaded.

The quality of the education systems and immigration policies in Australia and Canada probably act as a mitigating force against the general decline in the U.S. and U.K., but make no mistake that Australia (and Canada from what I can tell) has somewhat of a love affair with mad economic and cultural practices. I am pessimistic for the U.S. and U.K., and think they will cease to exist in their current forms within a couple of generations at most. Australia and Canada (don't really know much about New Zealand) should have time to course correct when they see the others self-destruct.

Anyway, that's just my take on a kind of bigger picture.

You are right that people become tied down geographically. It's probably not that easy for most people to just get a second passport, but it is pretty easy to set up a number of flags with assets. My father is quite wealthy (but not anywhere near the level of being a kingmaker). He is always complaining about the Australian government changing this law or that law, or trying to take a bite out of him. I've asked him why he doesn't put at least part of his money offshore. Then he just makes excuses. He knows that he is a target. Frankly, anyone with more than their own home is a target. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In the land of the financially irresponsible, the man with no debt and some savings is a rich man. In this day and age, it is pretty easy to set up accounts and brokerages overseas. People would be a fool not to do so and really can only blame themselves for being fleeced by the government (and thus those in the 1% and the 47%).

People will talk about diversification with their assets in order to mitigate risk from any one particular asset class. Yet they don't take the next logical step and diversify their assets to mitigate legislative risk from having everything in one country or currency. The super rich have always known this, as have people in countries that have experienced bouts of hyper inflation and so on. Smart middle class people in the Anglosphere need to figure this out because the new world order is that their nations are going to increasingly resemble the second/third world and, as in those places, their citizens and governments are going to increasingly see them as targets.

Americans are doubly fucked because the government taxes them on income and assets abroad, if I understand this correctly (though I know there's some kind of threshold -- $90,000? -- below which they don't need to pay tax). A second passport might not be so important for people from other countries, but if I were American, I'd be thinking pretty carefully about just how valuable that American passport was and just how much of an albatross was around my neck. There are lots of other passports that are equally as easy to travel on, and some are even better (e.g. E.U. passports).

[JayJuanGee]

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

JJG: I am Australian, living in Taiwan. There are multiple reasons I have mostly written about the U.S. in this thread. Firstly, more people are American here. Secondly, I believe the U.S. is further down the rabbit hole than Australia (more below), but it's where we're all headed eventually unless we course correct.

Feisbook_C:

Now I understand your country perspective, and generally speaking, I agree that a guy can be from any of the anglosphere countries that you described, and understand his/her place in the world from a priviledged perspective – with some of the variance to which you refer.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

From all that I have read, I think that of all of the Anglophone countries, the U.S. and U.K. seem to be in the worst shape long term. I think they're in real trouble, actually. There seems to be a very marked distinction between socio-economic classes in those two countries that doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bad in Australia or Canada, and the middle class in the U.S. and U.K. seem to be under real pressure. There's a lot of debt in those countries. Their education systems are bad compared to Canada or Australia, and they seem to be doing immigration in all the wrong ways. Basically, the U.S. and the U.K. seem to have either actively opened the floodgates, or turned a blind eye, to the dregs of the third world. They are being swamped by people who will be/are a massive drain on social services and thus, (more) productive members of their societies. On the other hand, Canada and Australia have much more sensible immigration policies, probably to the point that the average immigrant who now gets let in is actually smarter and harder working than the average local. That's a net gain, and those countries should remain competitive and prosperous going forwards.

These points seem valid to me.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Feminism and general cultural Marxism seem to be at their cutting edge in the U.S. in particular too.

To the extent possible, I attempt to remain open to various perspectives; however, when guys attempt to suggest that feminism in America is contributing to america’s downfall or that Marxism is contributing to such, these seem to be misreadings of both where America is at and which forces are controlling its direction forward.
Surely, both feminism and Marxism are present in the public discourse, but these forces have little influence on America’s direction… at least little influence in terms of what is really going on behind the scenes.
What has been going on is that when right wing forces get into govt – at least dating back to Reagan, there has been irresponsible spending of enormous proportions and then by the time a democrat gets into office, such as Clinton, there is little to no money left to spend on social programs. And, a similar cycle occurred under Bush to run the govt treasuries into the ground, and by the time Obama gets into power, he is somewhat bootstrapped into concepts of cuts being the supposed solution. These are NOT feminist and/or Marxist forces that are screwing and robbing the US treasury… and some of the continued bleeding that takes place under democratic administration is NOT to benefit socialistic forces, but to appease banking and finance interests because we had been pushed into some kind of impending doom… which then they attempt to justify that cuts to social security is “needed,” which much of the crises has been created by narrowed and wealthy interests (NOT created by populist forces that are fighting for crumbs).

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

It just seems to me that in virtually every way, from economics to culture, the U.S. and U.K. are trying to hit the self-destruct button. It's bizarre to me and it's hard to see how the U.S. and U.K. will turn around from the self-destructive policies and institutions they now have. Sure, there will always be some really smart people there, but lots of places have some really smart people and the rest of the population are pretty much useless. That doesn't make for great countries to live in unless you're super loaded.

The quality of the education systems and immigration policies in Australia and Canada probably act as a mitigating force against the general decline in the U.S. and U.K., but make no mistake that Australia (and Canada from what I can tell) has somewhat of a love affair with mad economic and cultural practices. I am pessimistic for the U.S. and U.K., and think they will cease to exist in their current forms within a couple of generations at most. Australia and Canada (don't really know much about New Zealand) should have time to course correct when they see the others self-destruct.

NO beef with this. Seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

You are right that people become tied down geographically. It's probably not that easy for most people to just get a second passport, but it is pretty easy to set up a number of flags with assets. My father is quite wealthy (but not anywhere near the level of being a kingmaker). He is always complaining about the Australian government changing this law or that law, or trying to take a bite out of him. I've asked him why he doesn't put at least part of his money offshore. Then he just makes excuses. He knows that he is a target. Frankly, anyone with more than their own home is a target. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In the land of the financially irresponsible, the man with no debt and some savings is a rich man. In this day and age, it is pretty easy to set up accounts and brokerages overseas.

You are pretty much making my point in that your father seems to be a very good example of someone who should have a large number of incentives to offshore a percentage of his assets, but he does NOT take the appropriate measures – probably in some sense, he doesn't really believe that the ship is sinking.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

People would be a fool not to do so and really can only blame themselves for being fleeced by the government (and thus those in the 1% and the 47%).

This statement is a bit loaded for a few reasons. 1) you have already described that there are various incentives working against people taking measures to protect themselves and 2) this convolution of the 1% and/or the 47% reaks of some kind of aversion that you seem to bear towards regular people and suggesting that there is a group that is freeloading off the govt… too much baggage for me to attempt to unravel.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

People will talk about diversification with their assets in order to mitigate risk from any one particular asset class. Yet they don't take the next logical step and diversify their assets to mitigate legislative risk from having everything in one country or currency. The super rich have always known this, as have people in countries that have experienced bouts of hyper inflation and so on. Smart middle class people in the Anglosphere need to figure this out because the new world order is that their nations are going to increasingly resemble the second/third world and, as in those places, their citizens and governments are going to increasingly see them as targets.

I generally agree with your ideas here, except the concept that the poor are leeching off the rich.. The problem, in my thinking is the other way around. But you certainly explain yourself well, here, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Americans are doubly fucked because the government taxes them on income and assets abroad, if I understand this correctly (though I know there's some kind of threshold -- $90,000? -- below which they don't need to pay tax). A second passport might not be so important for people from other countries, but if I were American, I'd be thinking pretty carefully about just how valuable that American passport was and just how much of an albatross was around my neck. There are lots of other passports that are equally as easy to travel on, and some are even better (e.g. E.U. passports).

Good points, here.