Well that should just tell you how messed up the situation in America has become. It means a system has been created where the poor are literally worse off if they earn more money, meaning it becomes in their best interest to work at low wages, while the rich can keep giving themselves nice pay raises. Very insidious indeed. It makes poverty unsolvable, and pitchforks all the more likely.

But, doesn't the US have some kind of progressive tax system? Isn't there like a minimum amount of income that is tax free? And isn't tax raised over the amount that falls within the scale, rather than over the total income?

Progressive? Nothing like that in the USA. The income tax brackets are not progressive.

Tax Rate	Single	            Married/Joint & Widow(er)	Married/Separate	Head of Household
10% 	    $1 - $9,075 	        $1 - $18,150 	        $1 - $9,075 	        $1 - $12,950
15% 	    $9,076-$36,900 	        $18,151 to $73,800 	$9,076 to $36,900 	$12,951 to $49,400
25% 	    $36,901 to $89,350 	        $73,801 to $148,850 	$36,901 to $74,425 	$49,401 to $127,550
28% 	    $89,351 to $186,350 	$148,851 to $226,850 	$74,426 to $113,425 	$127,551 to $206,600
33% 	    $186,351 to $405,100 	$226,851 to $405,100 	$113,426 to $202,550 	$206,601 to $405,100
35% 	    $405,101 to $406,750 	$405,101 to $457,600 	$202,551 to $228,800 	$405,101 to $432,200
39.6%     	over $406,750 	        over $457,600 	        over $228,800 	        over $432,200

These rates are not progressive. At least when combined with means tested welfare benefits. In nearly every case where someone can qualify for means tested welfare benefits, the take home to the individual reduces far faster as they earn more. This is the poverty trap than the Democratic party foisted upon America with its Great Society.

Here is how the trap works. Program A's means tested method is to give $X up to an income limit. Then at that limit the amount given is $X minus the amount earned over the income limit until it reaches zero. Now remember that an individual may be on several programs, each with the same means testing formula, a real multiplier effect. Then there is the anti-progressive income tax to consider. As each additional dollar is earned tax is taken out.

So the first additional dollar earned reduces the welfare by one dollar per program, we assume the person is on three programs and the person owes income tax on that dollar. Math, up one dollar, but 3 go away in program cuts and another 10%-15% in income tax. The net result is their additional dollar in income reduces their income by $2.10-$2.15!

That's right. In America when you raise the minimum wage the workers get poorer! The 47% is no joke.

---

I've debated getting involved in this discussion but the thread title got reinforced to me during a recent discussion I had.

A new guy came up to me at work when I was on break and asked, "Why do you work?"

I was confused..asked him to clarify.

"You're legitimately crippled. You could sit home and collect and not have to drag yourself here every day to deal with our stupid users."

It almost came across as an insult but yet I could see his point. He's young-word has it his work production is the bare minimum allowed to have Standard stats.

I explained to him I take great pride in my skill set and my work. It is not in my family heritage to sit around and just "collect". Even my father happily worked at some level until my Mom became ill (he retired truly at 85).

I love to earn my money and I love that I am able to support our family. I have been here so long I have Seniority and choose my schedule and don't need to work holidays if I don't wish to. I train other techs and am known to be a great model for other techs in our department at making sales in addition to our tech work.

He was speechless. Said "Ok" and walked away.

---

Мишель...

Where is this money?

In a mattress?

Does it matter where the money is?

Assuming some communist revolution does take place, and actual communists take over the government, they could either nationalize all the assets of the 1% or just write them off and start over, albeit significantly poorer. They don't even need to hang the 1% from any trees, although I suspect some still want to do that just for laughs.

Well that should just tell you how messed up the situation in America has become. It means a system has been created where the poor are literally worse off if they earn more money, meaning it becomes in their best interest to work at low wages, while the rich can keep giving themselves nice pay raises. Very insidious indeed. It makes poverty unsolvable, and pitchforks all the more likely.

But, doesn't the US have some kind of progressive tax system? Isn't there like a minimum amount of income that is tax free? And isn't tax raised over the amount that falls within the scale, rather than over the total income?

Progressive? Nothing like that in the USA. The income tax brackets are not progressive.

Tax Rate	Single	            Married/Joint & Widow(er)	Married/Separate	Head of Household
10% 	    $1 - $9,075 	        $1 - $18,150 	        $1 - $9,075 	        $1 - $12,950
15% 	    $9,076-$36,900 	        $18,151 to $73,800 	$9,076 to $36,900 	$12,951 to $49,400
25% 	    $36,901 to $89,350 	        $73,801 to $148,850 	$36,901 to $74,425 	$49,401 to $127,550
28% 	    $89,351 to $186,350 	$148,851 to $226,850 	$74,426 to $113,425 	$127,551 to $206,600
33% 	    $186,351 to $405,100 	$226,851 to $405,100 	$113,426 to $202,550 	$206,601 to $405,100
35% 	    $405,101 to $406,750 	$405,101 to $457,600 	$202,551 to $228,800 	$405,101 to $432,200
39.6%     	over $406,750 	        over $457,600 	        over $228,800 	        over $432,200

These rates are not progressive. At least when combined with means tested welfare benefits. In nearly every case where someone can qualify for means tested welfare benefits, the take home to the individual reduces far faster as they earn more. This is the poverty trap than the Democratic party foisted upon America with its Great Society.

Here is how the trap works. Program A's means tested method is to give $X up to an income limit. Then at that limit the amount given is $X minus the amount earned over the income limit until it reaches zero. Now remember that an individual may be on several programs, each with the same means testing formula, a real multiplier effect. Then there is the anti-progressive income tax to consider. As each additional dollar is earned tax is taken out.

So the first additional dollar earned reduces the welfare by one dollar per program, we assume the person is on three programs and the person owes income tax on that dollar. Math, up one dollar, but 3 go away in program cuts and another 10%-15% in income tax. The net result is their additional dollar in income reduces their income by $2.10-$2.15!

That's right. In America when you raise the minimum wage the workers get poorer! The 47% is no joke.

So wait, if you earn 9, 075 as single person you pay 10% taxes. Say you earn a 100 dollar more, do then they pay 15% tax over 9,175 dollars or just 15% over the 100 dollars, and 10% over the remaining 9,075 dollars?

If so, then getting a pay raise and bumped up a scale would never actually make you worse off in terms of taxes. The only way you might be worse off is if you cross the maximum wage at which you still have access to welfare, meaning you have to start paying for yourself again.

Yes, it does matter where the money is. Always has been, always will be. Economics 101.

Re: "Actual Communists".

Only those, fitting Einstein's definition of Insanity. Would try again.

No, it doesn't, not for this. People are mad because they don't have the money, thats what is important here. They don't care if the 1% has their money hidden in their mattress or on a bunch off shore bank accounts or in the form of investments.

As for the stupidity of trying Communism again, well different time, different place, different people, completely different situation. Einsteins definition of insanity wouldnt apply.

Gary you need to redo your whole work relation system and awards

Bring in a minimum flat wage , here it's $13.80 plus 15% loading for casual time and 1/2 for overtime and Saturdays , sundays double time .

Employer plays Superanuation (retirement fund) all PPE, Work insurance premiums

None of this B/S employer pays health care , or is in control of retirement funds , niether are the Unions allowd

Your system of industrial awards pay rates and attitudes are all crazy and unfair .

The employer always has the advantage and time has proven economics 101 does not work if industrial awards are not regulated .

The resent GFC has proved this when workers got pay cuts and managers got pay rises even thou the company's were not affected by the GFC much .

---

So wait, if you earn 9,075 as single person you pay 10% taxes. Say you earn a 100 dollar more, do then they pay 15% tax over 9,175 dollars or just 15% over the 100 dollars, and 10% over the remaining 9,075 dollars?

If you do not know how the system works, then you have zero right to comment on it!
When you have read https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26 front to back let us know.

---

Strange taxation rules in the US.
Here we have a city tax, county tax and a state tax.
Only state tax is progressive and you have to earn 49 thousand dollar a year to pay it.

Oops. Forgot VAT that is 25% here.

Gary you need to redo your whole work relation system and awards

Bring in a minimum flat wage , here it's $13.80 plus 15% loading for casual time and 1/2 for overtime and Saturdays , sundays double time .

Employer plays Superanuation (retirement fund) all PPE, Work insurance premiums

None of this B/S employer pays health care , or is in control of retirement funds , niether are the Unions allowd

Your system of industrial awards pay rates and attitudes are all crazy and unfair .

The employer always has the advantage and time has proven economics 101 does not work if industrial awards are not regulated .

The resent GFC has proved this when workers got pay cuts and managers got pay rises even thou the company's were not affected by the GFC much .

You seem to know just a tiny bit about the system in the USA. Likely because the press you read about also only knows a tiny bit about it. Worse we may use the same words to describe something that is completely different. Adds to the confusion.

You write PPE, I'm left having to assume that means Personal Protective Equipment. If so here the employer pays for it. The exception is if it is suitable for wear outside work. So a cotton long sleeve undershirt isn't PPE, but safety glasses and ear plugs are. OSHA is a big mess pile.

Work insurance premiums. Have no clue what is included in that phrase over there. Here items employers are required to pay are unemployment insurance (you're fired!) and workers compensation insurance (job injury). The employee pays disability insurance, but that also covers a disability that did not come from employment.

As to retirement, here there are two kinds. Social Security, a mess, is the mandatory program. Any other is voluntary and additional and may take many forms; traditional (defined benefits), 401(k), SEP, SIMPLE, Roth, Keough, IRA ... and of course not tax advantaged (you can have personal savings). If the employer voluntarily offers a traditional pension plan they must insure that plan with the PBGC. As all other plans are defined contributions, no insurance is required.

Health care is voluntary. Obamacare took a bad manure pile, turned it over, and added more fertilizer and water and declared it fixed.

---

Yes, it does matter where the money is. Always has been, always will be. Economics 101.

Re: "Actual Communists".

Only those, fitting Einstein's definition of Insanity. Would try again.

No, it doesn't, not for this. People are mad because they don't have the money, thats what is important here. They don't care if the 1% has their money hidden in their mattress or on a bunch off shore bank accounts or in the form of investments.

As for the stupidity of trying Communism again, well different time, different place, different people, completely different situation. Einsteins definition of insanity wouldnt apply.

Didn't Marx argue it must come from the proletariat in a highly industrialized country and, since Lenin was from a bourgeoisie to very wealthy family and Russia was not at the time highly industrialized then it should be no surprise it failed. The axioms weren't satisfied.

Depends where the investments are. Of course.

Capitalists investigating in poor, non-union, basically slave wages countries. Does not help, and hurts the Western Workers.

The Corrupt International Capitalists are reverting to 19th Century Capitalism. The only solution, which has worked, will be Corrupt International Unions.

Not, as has always failed: Marxism, Communism, et al.

That remains to be seen. It is not unlikely that we will see a complete paradigm shift in the next few decades. The way further automation and the further use of robotics and smart systems will wipe out a significant number of jobs without creating new ones will make the current economic system impossible to maintain. Even if you create strong unions, they can't help people who simply have no job anymore. And if enough people don't have a job anymore, a consumer economy no longer works, meaning capitalism as we know it no longer works.

With advanced enough computers, a post scarcity semi-communist system could work.

Also, one has to understand what went wrong with communism and why it never worked. Think of the countries that tried it. Where they the capitalist hell holes that Marx assumed would create a massive unhappy proletariat? No, basically all countries that have tried communism were pre-industrial societies. And all of them formed Communism in societies that were run by corrupt autocratic governments with no history of a stable rule of law or any other kind of genuine democratic movement. Its easy for autocrats to hijack things like Communism in places where lawlessness has always been the rule and where there never were any strong democratic tendencies present within society.

Communism failed in those places not because Communism inherently doesn't work, but because the preconditions for something as Communism to work were simply not present. Similarly, if the revolutions in Russia and China had been about creating liberal democracies, they just as surely would have failed.

And think about it, liberal democracy doesn't have a good track record either. It works in Europe and North America, but pretty much everywhere else it has failed to take hold as well. Of all the countries where the Arab spring took place, just one has a real chance to develop into a functioning democracy, and that is Tunisia, and even there its in peril because of the pressures created by terrorism. Everywhere else, it failed. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan where we tried to build liberal democracies. Abysmal failures the both of them. Why? Well, non of the preconditions required for a functioning liberal democracy were present.

Didn't Marx argue it must come from the proletariat in a highly industrialized country and, since Lenin was from a bourgeoisie to very wealthy family and Russia was not at the time highly industrialized then it should be no surprise it failed. The axioms weren't satisfied.

Yes exactly!

It would be interesting to see how a Communist revolution would work in a society that has a long and strong tradition of following the rule of law and democracy. The communist government would inherit both traditions, as well as their respect for both, along with stable government institutions and a stable and effective judicial system. Could it turn into another dictatorship? Possibly. But I think it could also be that the checks and balances, as well as peoples inherited expectations of a genuine democratic system could prevent such a thing.

Gary i understand your system enough to say it's "F"

Yes you are right PPE is personal protective equipment

Hard hats , eye wear , steel caped boots , uniforms , gloves , sunscreen , visi vests and any training all pay'd by employer not employee

workers comp for injury at work

No disability insurance
No unemployment insurance

9% superanuation payed by employer witch employee has control of wear it goes .Government can NOT use this in any way (buying bonds)

as i said your whole system is "F"ed and expensive

---

If your employers pay unemployment insurance that explains why you can't get the dole for long

You idiots have privatized unemployment !!!!

No bloody wonder your system is so stuffed up Socially

And the cost to Employers !!!! no wonder they are making you all dead peasants

You can not privatize Social Services without there being big problem created and when you finally learn this and wake up you may just be able to pay off your bill to the world as this system you have costs you 4 times what it should

All because you have listen'd to the selfish , lieing , cheating , criminal , greedy rich men con you into believing privatizing things is always better and more efficient.

It can only be efficient if it is in humane

---

You can not privatize Social Services without there being big problem created and when you finally learn this and wake up you may just be able to pay off your bill to the world as this system you have costs you 4 times what it should.

According to statistics from OECD statistics database the world's developed countries are spending averaged 9.5 percent of its GDP on health care, Sweden is around nine percent. The United States, however, which has among the world's most expensive health care costs, spent 17.6 percent of its GDP on health care. It is thus almost twice as much as in Sweden.

Yes Jan and there Justice system costs them 4 times what it would if they just had a proper social security system.

You would think with greed and money so much apart of America the fact it does cost them many times what it does else where , they would jump at the chance of saving money , but they are so Brain washed about communism from the

Reds under the Beds days

it will take a few generations for them to wake up .

---

If your employers pay unemployment insurance that explains why you can't get the dole for long

You idiots have privatized unemployment !!!!

So the government is private. Just love it.

---

If your employers pay unemployment insurance that explains why you can't get the dole for long

You idiots have privatized unemployment !!!!

So the government is private. Just love it.

That the US government is mostly run by private interest is not an understatement.

Yes Jan and there Justice system costs them 4 times what it would if they just had a proper social security system.

Social Security??? Oh, you mean welfare state. You need to use language that will be understood to talk about the issues or all you will do work yourself into a lather.

You would think with greed and money so much apart of America the fact it does cost them many times what it does else where , they would jump at the chance of saving money , but they are so Brain washed about communism from the

Reds under the Beds days

it will take a few generations for them to wake up .

The only way it costs money is when the bleeding hearts stop the powers that be from making the convicts work. They used to have to work to earn their room and board.

Of course if we got rid of the asinine war on drugs ...

Oh, and the real issue is how much money does the criminal justice system make for private enterprise and union fat cat bosses. It is a huge pile. More than what the welfare state would make them. Never forget the government just runs the printing press faster so for them there is no cost!

---

Social Security??? Oh, you mean welfare state. You need to use language that will be understood to talk about the issues or all you will do work yourself into a lather.

Actually you need to get with the times Gary .

There is no such thing as a welfare state that is just a lie . There is compassionate safety nets witch keep a lid on crime as people don't become so desperate they turn to crime just to get some food.

The only way it costs money is when the bleeding hearts stop the powers that be from making the convicts work. They used to have to work to earn their room and board.

Oh you mean slave labour after all they don't get paid much inside for work that is done and under cuts real honest businessmen trying to make money .

Maybe you can tell me then why it cost 4 times as much to keep someone locked up than to pay them a dole or pension .

And let's not mention how many lives are ruind because they had no other choice but crime to survive .

Oh right you saying we should go back to the convict years , man you are now showing that you realy are brain washed as you certainly don't know how they where treated .

Study our history mate then you'll learn .

Your live in such a moral country you still beieve in slavery .

How much of your population is in jail ??.... sounds like to me someone is very clever to build a big slave labor force that is cheap .

And once again we ask why are you all Dead peasants in America .

---