World Politics

[Bala Verde]

For the Netherlands, in 2008 I believe, the following applied for 'income derived from labor and home'

1| up to € 17.579| 33,60% (and 15,70% for seniors, 65 yrs and over)
2| from € 17.580 till € 31.589| 41,85% (and 23,95%)
3| from € 31.590 till € 53.860| 42% (and 42%)
4| from € 53.861 and higher|52% (and 52%)

Source

 

[fatandfast]

For the Netherlands, in 2008 I believe, the following applied for 'income derived from labor and home'

1| up to € 17.579| 33,60% (and 15,70% for seniors, 65 yrs and over)
2| from € 17.580 till € 31.589| 41,85% (and 23,95%)
3| from € 31.590 till € 53.860| 42% (and 42%)
4| from € 53.861 and higher|52% (and 52%)

Source

Is kindergeld part of a persons income in Holland? Is there such monies given out ?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well according to your own figures out of their 60% they are already paying 65% of the taxes.

I am not a statistician, however, my basic math skills figure that the bottom 75% pay 17% of the taxes.

 

[Bala Verde]

Is kindergeld part of a persons income in Holland? Is there such monies given out ?

There are certain deductibles, but I don't know them by heart. Looking them up, it says source

Deductibles:
- commuting costs when using public transportation
- alimony
- certain support of children under 30.
- certain health care expenses, or 'extraordinary expenses' (Chronically ill, disabilities, long term care etc I think)
- certain educational expenses
- charity/gifts

etc. I don't know how they all apply though...

There is something called 'kinderbijslag', or 'child allowance', where families get a certain amount of money to support their children (biological, adopted, stepsons/daughters etc; height of allowance based on child's age, up till 18 yrs).

the website's sourcefigures are per quarter year in euros, per child, born before 1995:

0-5 yrs 194,99
6-11 yrs 236,77
12-17 yrs 278,55

According to the dutch 'IRS' child allowance should not be counted as 'income'. source

 

[fatandfast]

There are certain deductibles, but I don't know them by heart. Looking them up, it says source

Deductibles:
- commuting costs when using public transportation
- alimony
- certain support of children under 30.
- certain health care expenses, or 'extraordinary expenses' (Chronically ill, disabilities, long term care etc I think)
- certain educational expenses
- charity/gifts

etc. I don't know how they all apply though...

There is something called 'kinderbijslag', or 'child allowance', where families get a certain amount of money to support their children (biological, adopted, stepsons/daughters etc; height of allowance based on child's age, up till 18 yrs).

the website's sourcefigures are per quarter year in euros, per child, born before 1995:

0-5 yrs 194,99
6-11 yrs 236,77
12-17 yrs 278,55

According to the dutch 'IRS' child allowance should not be counted as 'income'. source

I always found this curious while living in Germany and Belgium. The child allowance was accepted by everybody I knew who had kids. There was no welfare stigma that had been my indoctrination growing up in the US. It looked like a logical safety net for people with children. I was also taken with your numbers on the work week. I guess with @330 million people somebody is working part time but I would have guessed the US number at 50hrs per week, plus hours worked per week counts average American with 2 weeks vacation and average German/French 6 weeks ? Thanks for the links.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am not a statistician, however, my basic math skills figure that the bottom 75% pay 17% of the taxes.

Yes and we can keep playing this game all day long. The bottom line is if every citizen contributed the same percentage of every dollar they owned towards all the things that taxes do (which seems like a fair way to do it, yes?) the wealthiest people in the country would pay a higher percentage than they do now.
However the mantra of the rich conservatives when it comes to taxes is "it's mine, you can't have it, now build me a bridge so it's easier to get to my yacht." That they are clever enough to drag the rest of the (not quite as smart) conservatives along in a plan that really only benefits that 1%, means I guess that they have earned it?

 

[titan_90]

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?

You just don't get do you? You are caught up in your BS to see the world around you and see that this country is slowly going down in flames. I was once just like you until one day I decided to question everything that I believed. After seeing this world for what it really is I realised I was wrong about most things. I am sorry to tell you this but you are plain wrong also. You can ignore reality all you want but remember this, ignorance is a choice and has life and death consequences.

 

[Bala Verde]

I always found this curious while living in Germany and Belgium. The child allowance was accepted by everybody I knew who had kids. There was no welfare stigma that had been my indoctrination growing up in the US. It looked like a logical safety net for people with children.

I think it was introduced as a policy to induce people to have (more) children in order to control/affect population growth in the long term. Obviously - after the WW2 - with the babyboom generation, it was imperative that those people who are getting old (and need more care/stop working) are being replaced by younger people in order to sustain the current level of welfare. Combined with the trend that more women entered the job market, and postponed having children, it would erode the current level of services rendered to the public.

The US has always had a large influx of immigrants (some who have high birth rates) and in that respect, I think (didn't look at numbers) the US has less worries about replacing the retired population.

I was also taken with your numbers on the work week. I guess with @330 million people somebody is working part time but I would have guessed the US number at 50hrs per week, plus hours worked per week counts average American with 2 weeks vacation and average German/French 6 weeks ? Thanks for the links.

I think the Netherlands has one of the highest participation rates in the EU. However, many females work only part time less than 25 hrs (source

Three-quarters of working women in the Netherlands work part-time. More than half these women are in small part-time jobs (less than 25 hours per week) source

That would mean that many people work, but the average working hours per employed person would be reduced because of the high part-time involvement.

What I find most interesting though is that the average per capita income is still high, around $40000 (US +/- $47000) while working on average 400 hours less per year.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yes and we can keep playing this game all day long. The bottom line is if every citizen contributed the same percentage of every dollar they owned towards all the things that taxes do (which seems like a fair way to do it, yes?) the wealthiest people in the country would pay a higher percentage than they do now.
However the mantra of the rich conservatives when it comes to taxes is "it's mine, you can't have it, now build me a bridge so it's easier to get to my yacht." That they are clever enough to drag the rest of the (not quite as smart) conservatives along in a plan that really only benefits that 1%, means I guess that they have earned it?

I have stated in the past that a flat tax is something I would certainly consider - the problem is that the government does not want to go this route for a variety of reasons, I believe the one I have heard the most about is that it would prevent their being able to support business by giving tax breaks and get tax payers to put their money in areas the government thinks would be helpful for the economy (as well as into charities and science).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You can ignore reality all you want but remember this, ignorance is a choice and has life and death consequences.

I certainly agree with this. the question is, who is ignoring reality. My views are based on my observations of human nature, perhaps yours are as well but it is clear we are not going to agree.

 

[fatandfast]

Funny math involved, people in Holland have shorter work week and still have parity in personal income. The tax base supports health care, child stipends , education stipends and still doesn't implode on itself. It would look like a decline in birth rate or controlled immigration of young wage earners into the workforce would be a top priority of the government. If tax forecasts go down for a few years the lack of cash to service the welfare debt must look grim. Sounds like a social security woe. I think the US recovery will be slow until we can figure out some social/econ integration like a 25 hr a week job as normal. Many companies are not compelled to offer health care and other benefits until a threshold of 37 hrs per week has been met. The strange family formulas that Americans use to provide for their families is bizarre after looking at many Euro examples. A mother in the workforce working 40 at a full time job so she can make enough for child care and net an income with benefits. It looks like a shell game on the US side you have to include lots more steps to get to the same place.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

I have found the idea of a consumption based tax to be interesting but it is unconstitutional at the moment. Another potential problem is that wealthy incomes that do not spend would not pay taxes - after spending a short period of time while a law student clerking for an estate planning firm I am very aware that those with money are willing to pay an attorney as much to avoid taxes as they would have paid to the government in the first place (one reason I did not consider estate planning after graduation). I believe we might be better off with a flat tax above the poverty level with no exemptions but that is way too scary for congress to move on (it also does not allow for promoting economic expansion either).

Here are some numbers for were the Federal government is getting their tax money:

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.

I suppose I am abit slow and don't know how to read these figures...that may be...but this adds up to 187 percent of the income tax burden...I never majored in economics but I am missing something?

 

[fatandfast]

I certainly agree with this. the question is, who is ignoring reality. My views are based on my observations of human nature, perhaps yours are as well but it is clear we are not going to agree.

The only thing that makes anybody really stupid is running out of beer, chips and salsa. All other things can be forgiven.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I suppose I am abit slow and don't know how to read these figures...that may be...but this adds up to 187 percent of the income tax burden...I never majored in economics but I am missing something?

Eash statistical point contains a hundred percent - example: the bottom 50 percent wage earners pay 4 percent of the taxes, the top 50 percent pay 96 percent; the top 25 percent pay 83 percent, which means the bottom 75 percent pay 13 percent. This is a way to look at statistical breakdowns showing the progressive nature of the tax system.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I suppose I am abit slow and don't know how to read these figures...that may be...but this adds up to 187 percent of the income tax burden...I never majored in economics but I am missing something?

Um, the top 10% is part of the top 25% so you can't add them together.
It breaks down as:
Top 10% pays 65%
next 15% pays 18%
next 25% pays 13%
bottom 50% pays 4%
It seems unfair to the richest people until you consider the distribution of wealth figures and then you see that the richest don't pay as high a percentage of their money in taxes as the middle class does.

 

[Anonymous]

ok and thanks for the explanation...didnt mean to be flip...just didnt get...so thank you!

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Um, the top 10% is part of the top 25% so you can't add them together.
It breaks down as:
Top 10% pays 65%
next 15% pays 18%
next 25% pays 13%
bottom 50% pays 4%
It seems unfair to the richest people until you consider the distribution of wealth figures and then you see that the richest don't pay as high a percentage of their money in taxes as the middle class does.

Better explanation of the breakdown - however, discounting deductions, the wealthy pay the same as the middle class for the money that they get which falls in the middle class tax bracket, they then pay at a higher amount for the money they make above the middle class income amount.

 

[Anonymous]

Better explanation of the breakdown - however, discounting deductions, the wealthy pay the same as the middle class for the money that they get which falls in the middle class tax bracket, they then pay at a higher amount for the money they make above the middle class income amount.

I do appreciate the explanation...but I am curious...what then does "discounting the deductions" mean?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Better explanation of the breakdown - however, discounting deductions, the wealthy pay the same as the middle class for the money that they get which falls in the middle class tax bracket, they then pay at a higher amount for the money they make above the middle class income amount.

Of course a large percentage of wealthy people don't have "jobs" persay where they earn a paycheck, they have investments and corporations and can afford all sorts of tax dodges which result in their paying a lower tax rate than the wage earners below them.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course a large percentage of wealthy people don't have "jobs" persay where they earn a paycheck, they have investments and corporations and can afford all sorts of tax dodges which result in their paying a lower tax rate than the wage earners below them.

I appreciate the response...sorta figured that, but didn't want to jump to conclusions via my socialist viewpoint...c.f. w. buffet's infamous secretary I suppose...

 

[Anonymous]

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Edit/Delete Message

So I guess this is not considered to be their fair share

Since it is not their fair share, how much should they pay - percentage wise, perhaps a break down of what you think would be appropriate?

Check out these numbers and then relate them to yours and you will see that it runs along the distribution of wealth lines. You guys always want to talk about income as though a great majority of WEALTH is in play in the economy. It isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

In the United States

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[18]

In 2003, the 1% with the highest income paid more than 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the 10% with the highest income paid nearly 66% of the total income tax; the top 25% paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper 50% accounted for nearly 97% of US income tax revenue.[19] The US has a progressive tax structure which taxes less for smaller incomes, so income and taxation are not perfectly correlated.

Also, it is not wealth but income that is taxed in the United States (with the exception of estate taxes upon death). Capital gains taxes are also lower than regular income taxes. This means, for instance, while Warren Buffett has an estimated net worth of $62 billion (2008), ranked one of the richest men in the world, his taxable income in 2006 was $46 million (2006), about 0.1% of his net worth. And because most of his income was made as capital gains, his tax rate was a below-average 17.7% (2006).

Cry me a river.

 

[Hugh Januss]

On top of that the last time the distibution of wealth was this skewed towards the top in was in 1929 just before the start of the great depression.
So much for Reagan's trickledown theory.

 

[fatandfast]

Is wealth the money you have left over after expenses? Is it how much you make plus your credit headroom? Is it how much you make?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Is wealth the money you have left over after expenses? Is it how much you make plus your credit headroom? Is it how much you make?

Nothing to do with credit. It is the value of everything you own including bank accounts and investments less everything you owe on them.
Note: not an accountant so there may be something more to it

 

[Anonymous]

Is wealth the money you have left over after expenses? Is it how much you make plus your credit headroom? Is it how much you make?

This may help, and I believe the data I quoted was done on the Adam Smith definition.

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