141–150 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. On the other hand capital gains is 20-30%, and most entrepreneurs actually have their gains taxed as income. That means you're lucky if you get to keep 13%. ;) I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.
> Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. The difference between the US and postage-stamp-sized European countries like Sweden is that there is great political and cultural variation between different parts of the US. California is chock full of socialists/liberals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. On the other hand capital gains is 20-30%, and most entrepreneurs actually have their gains taxed as income. That means you're lucky if you get to keep 13%. ;) I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.
> Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. The difference between the US and postage-stamp-sized European countries like Sweden is that there is great political and cultural variation between different parts of the US. California is chock full of socialists/liberals.
At 174K mi^2, Sweden is larger than California's 164K mi^2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.
This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
Contrary to what you say, most people don't choose teaching because of the benefit plans. They might do it because they only have to work 75% of the time, but it isn't the benefits. They choose it because that is what they want to do. Help kids, teach, etc.
The benefits do not make sense as a reason to do this job. If that's what you're going for, you'd just take a job in the private sector, work more, and make a lot more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your state's gun laws prevent me from ever living there.
and you can't legally buy a Big Gulp. Seriously, and city/county/state govt that would do that, you can't trust them with your livelihood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.
This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
Of course, when legislators pass pension hikes, they do so knowing that it pleases powerful unions now and the costs to tax payers are decades down the road. So it is one of the more appealing ways for a legislator to screw their state. They may even be out of office by the time the bill comes due!
Defined-benefit pensions are a huge drag on many state budgets, and paying them does nothing to improve the quality of current government services. The bluer the state, the more they are screwed:
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know much about Vancouver if you think this is a realistic possibility. Vancouver, BC has barely any tech industry (a few software companies like Business Objects, and EA Sports are up there, but nothing meaningful), and the taxes are high. British Columbia has one of the highest tax rate in Canada. One of my Canadian friends told me that the 50% marginal tax rate started around $65k, although I haven't dou…
"50% marginal tax rate started around $65k" I think your friend has very poor math skills. http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Tax-Calculators-2012-Pe... $65K gross income in BC nets nearly $52K; a ~20% average tax rate. This is before any eligible deductions. Even if your friend was making $1,000,000 gross salary, they'd still pay less than 42% tax on average, and that's ignoring several legal tax shelters availabl…
Don't forget that BC has 12% sales tax and monthly premiums for health insurance.
Income tax is only one of the many taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps defined-benefit retirement plans should not be in the public sector since they haven't been in the vast majority of the private sector for quite some time.
This is the exact same argument the supporters of Ohio Senate Bill 5[1] used. One reason people in the public sector are willing to be paid less than their private counterparts is because their benefit plans are genuinely better. Saying they should eliminate one of the better benefits public sector employees get is stupid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
Secondly and to your point, I am only speaking of defined-benefit "If you work here for x years you get y% of your salary." This is to say nothing of the health care (which is generally better than the private sector), the hours (which if you don't work for a legislator are generally better than the private sector), the guaranteed pay raise every year, the access to jobs you can only apply to if you already have a state job, and various small perks like free or cheap parking, food, etc. These are all benefits of the job and I had to take a serious look at the health care and hours for a state job when deciding between that and a corporate offer.
I'm not here to argue whether or not defined-benefit retirement plans are inherently good or bad. I'm saying it's irresponsible and dangerous for a state to guarantee by law that they'll pay anyone a fixed amount of money for decades at some distant point in the future. This is why it's most dangerous. If the state gets bankrupted by some unforeseen catastrophe 30 years from now, it can't suspend, eliminate or trim pension payouts. Not even $0.01. By definition the fact that pensions offer better retirement income than defined-contribution plans like a 401k should be a giant red flag. The system implodes if you can't at least break even off of it, and if it was possible to make money off of them the private sector would still be using them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. On the other hand capital gains is 20-30%, and most entrepreneurs actually have their gains taxed as income. That means you're lucky if you get to keep 13%. ;) I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.
> Some things about the US still surprise me. In "socialist Sweden" (as it's sometimes called) retroactive taxation is unconstitutional. The difference between the US and postage-stamp-sized European countries like Sweden is that there is great political and cultural variation between different parts of the US. California is chock full of socialists/liberals.
Taxes have zero impact on my decision to start a company in California.