Work hours and vacation around the world

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by Artanis
Aren't you exaggerating a bit? 70% taxes, where do you get that from?

Well, he may not be as far off as you think. Take the UK for example. The highest rate of income tax is only 40% and the standard rate (which most people pay) is 22%. However, there is also National Insurance Contributions (a form of social security tax) at nearly 13% (12.8%) (although in theory only 1% of that is taxed at all levels of income, the rest only being paid up to a certain limit (just under £31,000) of income, in practice, the majority of the population have incomes below that upper limit and so pay the full 12.8% on all their earnings). That brings you to between 35% (for most people) and 53% (for the better off).

You then pay local taxes for council sevices, insurance tax if you buy any insurance products (including motor insurance, house insurance etc), you pay stamp duties if you buy a new house, you pay excise duties on petrol, cigarettes and alchohol, indirectly (you don't always realise it, but its included in your bills) you pay environmental taxes when you use gas, electricity or pay your local council to take away your rubbish, you pay airport tax when you fly anywhere, you pay road tax if you drive a car, TV licence fees (which is a form of tax for watching state funded television), and various other fees and licences for things which the state supplies eg passports, medical perscriptions etc.

Depending on your pattern of consumption, these taxes easily equate to about 10-15% of a person's annual salary if they are on high earnings. However, because these taxes are paid at the same rate by everyone, no matter how much they earn, they take up a much bigger share of income for those on average wages (say 15-20%).

So far, you have a combined tax rate of between 50-55% and 63-68% depending on your income.

Virtually everything you buy (goods or services) with the remaining 45-50% or 32-37% of your income is subject to 17.5% VAT (a kind of sales tax). Thus, approximately 9% or 7% (depending on your level of income) goes to pay VAT, bringing your total tax bill to approximately 59-64% if you are on average earnings, and 70-75% if you are a higher earner. Taking both together, they average out at just below 70%.

I have tried to be prudent with these calculations - I haven't included inheritiance tax (which is only paid by relatively wealthy people, and only on death), capital gains taxes (which apply to disposals of only certain types of assets) nor have I included extra business taxes paid by people who are self-employed.

The last point is this: the UK is considered to be a low tax country by European standards. Basic rates of income tax in Germany, Belgium, France, etc are much higher than the UK, their social security rates are also higher (as indicated by our Norwegian friend) and their VAT rates are also often higher.

It may seem surprising, but I don't think the 70% rate is that unrealistic.

[Elvellon]

Do you continue to buy things when you can't afford them just to help the economy out? People, by spending, helps to hire more people and so forth - yet people need to cut back during slow economies.
PEOPLE ALSO attempt to increase THEIR proifits while reducing THEIR expenses. You think it's any different for companies or should be? Do you go into the store and think - "if I don't buy that DVD in this slow economy - it may affect the revues of a company - which will then require them to lay off people"? Or do you say - "the economy is tight and I need to save my money in case something happens to my job"? Companies also have to stay competitive in slow economies - or else they won't be around to have any employees.

No I don’t, but you seem to think companies would. As you said:

“It is in a company's best interest to increase living conditions.”

Sorry - but I disagree, You can look at it that way - but I don't. Why do yoy feel - just because I generally make more that I am more able to afford 30% taxes while someone else can only afford 10%? A flat income tax is fair - graduated income taxes are not. And yes - what I DO with MY money is my decision. It's not handed to me you know

Except that you or I do not come with money out of the blue. Whatever the way you earn your money, you are counting with the existing social infrastructure to do it. Maintaining that structure does have costs, resources are needed for it.

Why do I feel that a 10% tax is fair for some and a 30% is fair for others?

If Bill pays 30% and still can afford the Rolls, the million dollar house and his yacht and if Joe’s 10% means that he cannot afford to go on holidays, or pay for his kids college, who do you think is suffering the greater burden in maintaining the social framework, and who do you think is paying the greater personal cost for it?

it's in a stagnant period and has been for about 10 years.


Actually while we were enjoying the boom period over the last 10 years - Europe has been stagnant. Only during the last 2 years has Europe looked better - but not because of anything they really have done - it is mostly because the US economy took a dip.

Definitely not stagnant, were did you get that idea?

European economy has been steadily growing, except for the current crisis period.

And why do you think it was the US economy to take the dip first, then? Coincidence? Nope.

With dubious results - only because people RELY on the state to take care of them. It makes people lazy

I don’t know how thing s work around there, but here unemployment subsidy is not for ever and his associated with things like aiding the unemployed in finding another job and giving them professional training to give them more qualifications. If that is not the way they do it there, then perhaps what you need is to rethink how you do it, Social Security is what you make of it.

As for the dubious results, I meant the results of privatisations. Frequently we end up with worse and more expensive services, instead of more efficient ones.

The state had very little to do with the restarting of the European countries - it was America's investments and Marshal Plan which got the European economies back up. Currently with the social programs Europe has and having 70% taxes on the citizens - does not leave much for them to spend on other things they want. The ecomony of Europe is mostly controlled by beauracy. I'm for small government and limited taxes and more self reliance.

Yup, Artanis got what I meant right

It is not a debatable issue that by increasing their spending a government can decrease the level of a recession, and increase the speed of recovery.

As for the bureaucracy, do not be misled by jokes about bananas and other trivia. The perceived weight of bureaucracy in many European countries is misleading. Sure, it is larger than necessary, and works worst that it could, but that is not the same to say small government would do better. In fact, I already had the personal experience that it can work worse. Rather, we need shape it according with our needs, not get rid of it.
Besides, the EU is not the US. What is a good solution for the US is not necessarily good for the EU and vice versa. I doubt very much that the US neoliberal model can or should be a model for the EU economical development, the results would not be that positive since we have different problems.

[Ruinel]

DAMMIT! *is jealous* my vacation ends on Tuesday.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Besides, the EU is not the US. What is a good solution for the US is not necessarily good for the EU and vice versa. I doubt very much that the US neoliberal model can or should be a model for the EU economical development, the results would not be that positive since we have different problems.

Finally - something we can agree on. Now if Europe in general can stop acting like they have a better system than the US and just accept the fact that we do things differently - there wouldn't be so many negative feelings. (this statement comes from the posts made last year where a bunch of Candadians and Europeans complained that the US didn't do things the way they did).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Artanis

I've never been to the USA, so I guess you could put that against me, but I know many people who have, and they say USA is a marvellous country to live in - as long as you're a rich, healthy, white man. I'm sure they're exaggerating, but there seems to be some truth in it, also from what you're telling us here.

I'm not sure what I've said here that would give you that impression. people should rely on themselcves before expecting handouts from the government. As for your friends - that is a DEFINITE exaperation. Colin Powell himself grew up in Brooklyn from poor immigrant parents from Jamaica. One of the things that made him different though was that his parents taught him he CAN do anything he wanted to do. It was the same with Condoleeza Rice also.

I'm not saying that everything is perfect in Europe - it's certainly not - but I happen to prefer the European beurocracy before your kind of capitalist individualism anyway.

I think people should look to themselves first before relying on big brother.

[Ruinel]

How can a flat income tax be fair to the poor or unskilled workers who make minimum wage or slightly higher? They still have to pay rent, feed their families, pay the electricity, water, etc., on the little income they make.

Everyone wants a good deal from the businesses they buy clothes from, from the restaurant they eat at (especially fast food) and from other businesses that hire cheap, unskilled labor and pay these people minimum wages and offer no health benefits nor retirement. And certainly not any kind of paid vacation. You think that it all works out? That capitalism pays for itself? I have news for you: your taxes are supplementing those wages that company pays their unskilled labor. When their children get sick they use Medicaid. When they can't feed their families they get food stamps. When they have serious injuries, they go to the emergency room of the local hospital and walk on the bill. Who takes care of that bill? Your government, and your taxes. You and I supplement those cheap wages so that the big businesses can make their profit. Your taxes are going into their pockets, keeping their cost low.

Now I know what some of you right wing conservatives are saying *eyes certain people at the Moot that I know so well*: survival of the fittest and these are the choices these people make. Not so. Think about it. Not everone has the brains to go to college. Not everyone has the money and ideas to start their own business. These are the people that service society. They are the working poor. They live one paycheck away from eviction. You can't just say that because they are poor that they shouldn't fall in love, get married and have a family.

But if I had my say, I'd make these companies pay a decent wage and force them to offer health insurance for their families. (Ok, brand me a liberal!) Maybe a paid vacation should be a luxury. Ok, I'll agree to that. But should life itself be a luxury? No.

[afro-elf]

http://www.worktolive.info/poen_vaca_cong.html

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
http://www.worktolive.info/poen_vaca_cong.html

I don't support it. It's just more big government and more expenses being passed onto the consumers through legislation.

[afro-elf]

what about this?


http://www.web.net/32hours/

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
what about this?


http://www.web.net/32hours/

No - don't support a 32 hour work week. Why do we need a 32 hour work week? So we can even take LONGER to make money and take longer for us to pay our taxes? I just don't see where having a 3 day weekend is necessary - or beneficial.

[afro-elf]

Personally, my time is more important than money. This is not saying money is NOT important.

I would rather have a longer vacation and more free time.

As long as I made enough to live at a level that I was at the very least comfortable with.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Personally, my time is more important than money. This is not saying money is NOT important.

I would rather have a longer vacation and more free time.

As long as I made enough to live at a level that I was at the very least comfortable with.

Well do you think it is the company's role to continue paying at the same rate for less work? Why should they?

I agree my time is valuable too - but with money comes freedom also and the only real way to become truly free is to work for yourself anyway - and even then there isn't much freedom.

[afro-elf]

QUICKLY I would say:

Time off and shorter hours would increase productivity Extreme hours don't increase efficiency, they decrease it.

It might cut unemployement.

But, those are just quick ideas.

[afro-elf]

I mentioned a 3 day weekend. Maybe it would work to cut unemployment by have people work a staggered schedule. This way there is SOMEONE always working.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
QUICKLY I would say:

Time off and shorter hours would increase productivity Extreme hours don't increase efficiency, they decrease it.

It might cut unemployement.

But, those are just quick ideas.

Well I don't consider 40 hours to be extreme hours. But then again managers hardly ever work only 40 hours - they work overtime on their own. Companies will also have to reduce your pay - if you're going to reduce the number of hours you'll work.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
I mentioned a 3 day weekend. Maybe it would work to cut unemployment by have people work a staggered schedule. This way there is SOMEONE always working.

A lot of companies work 24 hours a day. But it's not just the pay rate that causes company expenses - it's also all the benefits. Those will have to be cut or passed on into higher prices. Also- if the customers aren't buying - companies can't hire.

[afro-elf]

it's also all the benefits.

That I will have to ponder. I've no response to that at the moment.


But, the following is just an economic question. Would a lower unemployment rate be a boon or a bust?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
That I will have to ponder. I've no response to that at the moment.


But, the following is just an economic question. Would a lower unemployment rate be a boon or a bust?

I don't think it will be a lower unempplyment rate except maybe in low income jobs. If companies hired more people - prices will either stay the same or rise - becuase of the additional beneift cost. This will have an impact on people's disposable income and they will have less purchasing power.

[afro-elf]

Maybe this be an option. There could me 3 job tracks,

Full time Full benefits. 40 plus hrs

Semi full time 30-32 hrs semi benefits


Part time minor benefits if any.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Maybe this be an option. There could me 3 job tracks,

Full time Full benefits. 40 plus hrs

Semi full time 30-32 hrs semi benefits


Part time minor benefits if any.

How is that even going to work when democrats are trying to twist the tax code by arguing that people who do NOT pay taxes are being unfairly treated because they're not getting a tax CREDIT. They already feel that people who don't pay any tax should be getting money back.

And look at the role unions play too.