Work hours and vacation around the world

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

The law enacting the federal Earned Income Tax Credit has been praised by former President Ronald Reagan as "the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

I assume this is the program you're referring to?

For example, in a 1996 Wall Street Journal column, conservative Harvard economist and Journal contributing editor Robert J. Barro observed: "...There exists a serious program in the form of the earned income tax credit that actually helps the working poor in a way that promotes work and discourages welfare. The EITC was originally a Republican idea — started by the Ford administration in 1975 and expanded by the Reagan administration during the glorious 1980s and the Bush administration in 1990....Mr. Clinton's support is not sufficient reason to regard the program as mistaken. In fact, it has a well conceived structure that ought to be retained and perhaps expanded in a comprehensive welfare reform package."(1)

Similarly, in a 1996 Business Week article, the well-known conservative economist and Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker praised the EITC for aiding poor families without reducing employment, discouraging work, or increasing reliance on public assistance. Becker wrote that the EITC "rewards rather than penalizes poor families with working members....Empirical studies confirm the prediction of economic theory that the EITC increases the labor force participation and employment of people with low wages because they need to work in order to receive this credit." Becker also applauded the EITC for being "fully available to families with both parents present, even where only one works and the other cares for their children...."(2) [i.e., for being available to low-income working families with stay-at-home mothers].

A series of studies have been conducted in the past few years on the EITC's effects on work behavior. These studies have consistently found that the EITC has substantial positive effects in inducing single parents to go to work. One of the most important of these studies finds that the proportion of single mothers who are in the labor force rose sharply between 1984 and 1996 and that the EITC expansions instituted during this period are responsible for more than half of this increase.
Another study finds that the EITC offsets between one-fourth and one-third of the decline during the past 20 years in the share of national income received by the poorest fifth of households with children.
Recent Census data show that among working families, the EITC lifts substantially more children out of poverty than any other government program or category of programs. The EITC is particularly important in reducing poverty among children in the South, where working families tend to have lower wages and consequently are more likely to qualify for the EITC. In addition, a just-released study by Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty found that the EITC reduces poverty among young children by nearly one fourth.

http://www.cbpp.org/311eitc.htm

I can see why you'd hate that... and of course one of the first things the new Republican majority did was to pass a law that said that U.S. companies that shift their corporate headquarters to tax havens and money-laundering paradises like Bermuda to avoid American taxes are still eligible for Government contracts.

"Hey, you working fools pay for those other fools to die in Iraq..we'll just lie here on the beach and suck up the juice...thank you, Republicans"

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by 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.

I think that a flat tax with a "floor" and no "loop holes" would be the best and easiest system to implement.

The numbers will need to be worked out but for an example:

All income upto $40,000 Dollars are not taxed.

All income above $40,000 Dollars will be taxed at 20% with no exemptions.

If someone make $100,000
then they will be taxed on 20% of $60,000 or $12,000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There could be room for some adjustmments with this basic system:

They can adjust the floor of the exemption level (instead of $40,000 make it $30,000 or $50,000)

They can adjust the percentage of taxation (instead of 20% of income make it $22% or %18 of income)

The government could add an additional higher tax rate level on income above another point (say hypothetically 30% for income above $300,000)
If someone make $500,000
then they will be taxed
20% of $240,000 or $48,000 +
30% of $200,000 or $60,000
for a total of $108,000 in income taxes.)

I would not reccommend adding more than one additional level, since the flat tax is supposed to be a simpler tax system.

If revenues do not meet what the govenment spends then the government should reduce spending. (I know this is hard for some gov't types to understand)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The levels should be linked to inflation so that the numbers are adjusted every 5 to 10 years.

These are some of my thoughts off the cuff about the flat tax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will agree with you that if a flat tax is applied equally across the board, then the tax will weigh proportionately more against those with smaller incomes than large incomes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10% from someone making $10,000 is worth more to that person than
10% from someone making $1,000,000 is to that person relatively speaking.

The basic necessities of living are about the same for all people rich or poor. Once those necessities are covered, one can look to other needs/wants as their income permits.

That is part of the reason I thought a "floor" would help soften the hit of a flat tax on lower income people somewhat.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
I think that a flat tax with a "floor" and no "loop holes" would be the best and easiest system to implement.

Yes - I agree Mithrandir - the flat tax is the best system. However, there is no reason for being penalised for making more money. Also - it should eliminate ALL tax credits and tax deductions.


GrayMouser - you assume wrong. That is NOT the tax plan the Democrats are complaining about. I'm talking about Bush's tax plan. The democrats feel that people who do NOT pay any taxes should get a tax credit under his proposal. They don't pay any taxes - so why should they get money back?

Also - I don't think that companies should be eligible for government contracts if they move overseas or to other tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

By the way - it costs a lot more to live in New Jersey than it does the south - so federal aid programs do nothing in New Jersey - becuase they're not based on cost of living. New Jersey is NOT the same as Mississippi. $300 can go a lot further in the south - it won't go anywhere in New Jersey.

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yes - I agree Mithrandir - the flat tax is the best system. However, there is no reason for being penalised for making more money. Also - it should eliminate ALL tax credits and tax deductions.


GrayMouser - you assume wrong. That is NOT the tax plan the Democrats are complaining about. I'm talking about Bush's tax plan. The democrats feel that people who do NOT pay any taxes should get a tax credit under his proposal. They don't pay any taxes - so why should they get money back?

Also - I don't think that companies should be eligible for government contracts if they move overseas or to other tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

By the way - it costs a lot more to live in New Jersey than it does the south - so federal aid programs do nothing in New Jersey - becuase they're not based on cost of living. New Jersey is NOT the same as Mississippi. $300 can go a lot further in the south - it won't go anywhere in New Jersey.

Although, I think the best way would involve no taxes based on income. How such a system can be well devised is another issue.

It is amazing that some how the US was able to go for roughly 120 years without an income tax.

[Lalaith]

In Austria we usually work from 7 am to 4 pm. Approximately.

And students have at least 9 weeks of summer holidays.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
...the flat tax is the best system. ... Also - it should eliminate ALL tax credits and tax deductions.

Ah. So, you want the US to be more like Canada.

They don't pay any taxes - so why should they get money back?

On this, I agree.

Also - I don't think that companies should be eligible for government contracts if they move overseas or to other tax havens to avoid paying taxes.

I didn't know they were eligible at all! That sucks!

By the way - it costs a lot more to live in New Jersey than it does the south - .... [/B]

One of the reasons that property is so expensive in the NW of the US is because of the population and the demand for land. With demand comes a higher price. I have a house here, but I've been told it would go for about $150K to $200K up in the NW US or in California, which really shocked me!

However, I can't account for the taxes, though. You've told me that NJ has a state income tax, but Texas does not. We fight it every time it goes up for a vote. What does a state need with a state income tax anyway?

Maybe you should move from NJ, to the South. LOL! just joking!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ah. So, you want the US to be more like Canada.

No - because Canada has huge taxes and I don't agree with all their social programs. They also have a graduated income tax as far as I know - with deductions. I think EVERYONE should pay the same rate in taxes.

One of the reasons that property is so expensive in the NW of the US is because of the population and the demand for land. With demand comes a higher price. I have a house here, but I've been told it would go for about $150K to $200K up in the NW US or in California, which really shocked me!

Why would it shock you - there are multiple reasons for the higher prices in houses and property. Land is one of the reasons and the main reason in NJ as I have said before. Also - cultural activities and higher quality of life increases housing costs. But gas is cheaper in NJ and a lot of food is cheaper in NJ than other parts of the country. And actually the high cost of housing in the Northwest isn't because of lack of land - it's because of artificial barriers. One of the reasons I couldn't stand Portland was because of the land zoning - it forces developers to clear cut all the trees, build on postage stamp size lots with houses 2 feet from one another. I didn't like it.

However, I can't account for the taxes, though. You've told me that NJ has a state income tax, but Texas does not. We fight it every time it goes up for a vote. What does a state need with a state income tax anyway?

Most states have an income tax. Oregon has a high income tax - 8.5% but no sales tax. Washington has no income tax - but a high sales tax - 8.5%. Basically what you do is live in Washington and go shopping in Oregon - works out very nicely.

Maybe you should move from NJ, to the South. LOL! just joking!

Nope - I like it here and the higher cost of living doesn't bother me - it's the fact that if you're going to have benefits for the poor - it's unfair that NJ, who does have a poor population, gets the same amount of money as a person who is poor in Mississippi. In NJ that money doesn't go anywhere near as far as it does in Mississippi - only because of the cost of living.