m8 owners: what's your annual income?

[Olsen]

Sir:

Socialism and the capitalism are different theories of democracy. What democracy means is representative government -- one person, one vote. Demcracy has nothing to do with disclosure of private information. On the other hand, totalitarian governments love to know everything about its people so they can be better controlled.

P.

Well, here in Europe we don't regard 'socialism and capitalism' oposite ideas as such. We elect socialist parties in a capitalist & democratic system. The social democrats are no threat to 'private enterprise' as such, - but could be a threat to an unregulated financial sector.

What we have is a system were personal and private financial information is 'public'; it is available to everybody. The idea is that all information, except for things related to national security, is 'public'. Private financial information is indeed available to US authorities like IRS, regardless - but it is not public.

Generally, far more private and confidential information on US citizens are available to US authorities than what is typical here in Europe. Thanks to laws implemented to fight 'terrorism' in the name of DHS (Department of Homeland Security). Even FBI got far greater freedom to evesdrop on US citizens than what is typical of European policeforces.

Still I would not regard USA or any European nation i know of as 'totalitarian'. Nor is the goal of any social democratic party in Europe I know of to create such a state. - Please see the difference between social democrats and the totalitarian communist states (facists, really) of Eastern Europe.

The goal of the European social democrats is to create decent societies for ordinary people within a framework of a 'capitalist/free enterprise' system. Typical issues are public/free healthcare for all, public pension, lavish social programs, - but also a budget in balance. Which gives high taxes. Ref. the discussion on 'who's gonna pay'.

 

[retow]

Well, here in Europe we don't regard 'socialism and capitalism' oposite ideas as such. We elect socialist parties in a capitalist & democratic system. The social democrats are no threat to 'private enterprise' as such, - but could be a threat to an unregulated financial sector.

What we have is a system were personal 😱and private financial information is 'public'; it is available to everybody. The idea is that all information, except for things related to national security, is 'public'. Private financial information is indeed available to US authorities like IRS, regardless - but it is not public.

Generally, far more private and confidential information on US citizens are available to US authorities than what is typical here in Europe. Thanks to laws implemented to fight 'terrorism' in the name of DHS (Department of Homeland Security). Even FBI got far greater freedom to evesdrop on US citizens than what is typical of European policeforces.

Still I would not regard USA or any European nation i know of as 'totalitarian'. Nor is the goal of any social democratic party in Europe I know of to create such a state. - Please see the difference between social democrats and the totalitarian communist states (facists, really) of Eastern Europe.

The goal of the European social democrats is to create decent societies for ordinary people within a framework of a 'capitalist/free enterprise' system. Typical issues are public/free healthcare for all, public pension, lavish social programs, - but also a budget in balance. Which gives high taxes. Ref. the discussion on 'who's gonna pay'.

Are you really sure about what you are posting here. How about:
"DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 24 October 1995
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION"

Taxpayers net taxable income information is obtainable in some jurisdictions, but details of persoanl and financial information seems quite a different ballgame. Guess you know that Norway is not part of the European Union, but rest assured, that above legislation applies to the vast majority of the 366 million EU citizens and residents you mention in one of your other posts.

 

[zeezea]

I would love to.

I looked up all the sites of the Norwegian Social Democrat parties that I know, we got two, but all the info was on very local issues - and in Norwegian. One English (German, Russian, French etc.) is this one: http://www.wsws.org/

Dear Olsen:

I must say, you do have a sense of humor. 😀

And no, I don`t really want to see anyone`s financial information.

Regards 😉
Al

 

[zeezea]

Peace

Peace

You guys want to take your politics some place else?

Please.

Hello Pitxu:
I think you are the voice of sanity right now. Unfortunatley, I gave in
to my less noble instincts and contributed to the rancor - and that is
definately not I come to this website for.


Regards,

Al

 

[yanidel]

According to the poll, it would make statistical sense that I buy a M8.🙄
Let's see if that explanation is enough to convince my top executive management (girlfriend) 😀

 

[Olsen]

Are you really sure about what you are posting here. How about:
"DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 24 October 1995
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION"

Taxpayers net taxable income information is obtainable in some jurisdictions, but details of persoanl and financial information seems quite a different ballgame. Guess you know that Norway is not part of the European Union, but rest assured, that above legislation applies to the vast majority of the 366 million EU citizens and residents you mention in one of your other posts.

Taxpayers net income, net fortune and tax paid, that is 'the personal and financial information' that we are talking of, is available as 'public information' in a range of European countries of which most are members of EU. Here in Norway it is even available on the Net.

 

[Olsen]

Hello Pitxu:
I think you are the voice of sanity right now. Unfortunatley, I gave in
to my less noble instincts and contributed to the rancor - and that is
definately not I come to this website for.


Regards,

Al

I wonder why it is always someone that wants an end to 'other people's political discussions'. Why is that? I would regard it as being unpolite to try to stop someone else's discussions. If you don't like it; stay out of it!

 

[back alley]

i'm sure there must be a nice political forum where you could go and discuss cameras...

 

[Olsen]

Because this is not a political forum.

Sure,

So, we are photography enthusiasts having a beer together on this 'global bar' after working hours. Can't we discuss politics - or football..?

- And if someone do discuss some issue not strictly 'photography' then somebody else should stop them...? Why? Can't those opposing just surf on to a thread that interests them..?

Here we share - supposedly, the disgust for totalitarian states....

Come on!

 

[retow]

Because this is not a political forum.

No censorship, please. Unless this is your house, be tolerant.

 

[aizan]

well, unlike the poll, you couldn't say the tangent wasn't informative.

 

[blw]

You're exactly right, aizan. I've enjoyed the discourse on this thread and welcome more of it!

I've actually learned a little about how the EU works and consider myself better for it. But I am still a little pissed that my non-ownership of the M8 keeps me from participating in the poll.

C'est la vie.

 

[zeezea]

Take a deep breath....serenity.

Take a deep breath....serenity.

I wonder why it is always someone that wants an end to 'other people's political discussions'. Why is that? I would regard it as being unpolite to try to stop someone else's discussions. If you don't like it; stay out of it!

LOL


quote: If you don`t like it, stay out of it!

Seriously Olsen, I thought I was! :bang: My last posts were an
attempt to turn down the heat. Look at the heading of the last
post.....PEACE......

" Just when I thought I was out.......they pull me back in "
Don Michael Corleone

Regardless, it`s good advice - I`m out !

Peace and prosperity,
Al

 

[Kim Coxon]

Unfortunately, this isn't the bar after work but rather in the workplace during working hours. If you want to go to the bar after working hours try the OT forum. 😉

Kim

Sure,

So, we are photography enthusiasts having a beer together on this 'global bar' after working hours. Can't we discuss politics - or football..?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Unfortunately, this isn't the bar after work but rather in the workplace during working hours. If you want to go to the bar after working hours try the OT forum. 😉

Kim

Dear Kim,

Then again, every act is a political act -- including going on RFF during working hours...

Either that act supports the status quo, or it seeks to change it, even if by an infinitesimal amount.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pherdinand]

do not bash cognac. Cognac is a great drink. 🙂
My god. What's next? Talking dirty about Lagavulin? Complaining about Scapa?

No extreme way of thinking (or leading a country) works well. No exception.
People are different, and they want different things to make themselves happy.
Some like blondes, some like redheads.
Some like rangefinders. ):

 

[gdi]

Dear Mike,

An interesting way of defining 'fair'.

Let's set an arbitrary (and very low) poverty line: $5,000, say. And an arbitrary (and again low) income tax level: 10%, say.

Someone with an income of $5,000 is therefore taxed $500 and is left with $4500. They are therefore below the poverty line, i.e. can't afford to eat, buy shoes for their children, etc.

Someone with $100,000 is taxed $10,000 and is left with $90,000. They are still $80,000 above the poverty line.

Do you sincerely believe this is a fair taxation system?

Cheers,

R.

Quite a simplistic and unrealistic scenario, for several reasons (from the perspective of a US citizen)...

One, any discussion of a flat tax I have been aware of has had a realistic minimum level for taxes to be paid - for example, several years ago Forbes discussed a minimum of $40k+ for a family of four before the 17% tax kicked in. Other discussions have that range in the $20k's with a different flat rate.

Two, under the US current system of loopholes, shelters and incentives, some billionaires actually pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Warren Buffet claims to pay 17.7% of his $46million and the assistant 30% of her $60K.

Which is more fair?

I know your example was meant to be extreme, but carried this far, it fails to provide a meaningful perspective. Personally, I don't know if I could advocate a flat tax unless I saw all the specifics. But most arguments against one seem to fall along the same lines as yours, not taking into account the end result of the current "progressive" tax scheme, which in many cases results in lower rate for the wealthiest.

 

[Olsen]

Quite a simplistic and unrealistic scenario, for several reasons (from the perspective of a US citizen)...

One, any discussion of a flat tax I have been aware of has had a realistic minimum level for taxes to be paid - for example, several years ago Forbes discussed a minimum of $40k+ for a family of four before the 17% tax kicked in. Other discussions have that range in the $20k's with a different flat rate.

Two, under the US current system of loopholes, shelters and incentives, some billionaires actually pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Warren Buffet claims to pay 17.7% of his $46million and the assistant 30% of her $60K.

Which is more fair?

I know your example was meant to be extreme, but carried this far, it fails to provide a meaningful perspective. Personally, I don't know if I could advocate a flat tax unless I saw all the specifics. But most arguments against one seem to fall along the same lines as yours, not taking into account the end result of the current "progressive" tax scheme, which in many cases results in lower rate for the wealthiest.

Well put.

In Norway you all income below 62.500 NOK (11,160 $) is free of income tax. Sounds fair, but still billionairs can have 'nill' in income tax thanks to 'loopholes and incentives'. Further: Shipping companies are practically tax free here in Norway. For close to 8 years (with conservative rule) we had zero tax on 'dividend from Norwegian stock companies (aksjeselskap)'. Resulting in a flow of 550 billion NOK (100 billion US$) flowed to the 5% richest tax payers, - less than 250.000 individuals here in Norway, through these 8 years. The European Commission complained and called this loophole 'unfair competition'. Still it was not shut down before the Social Democrats came to power three years ago.

Compare this to that our public pension fund has lost - so far - 33 billion $ (according to the latest overview, but it is gonna be more) since Monday last week. Our public pension system pays out pension after 'salary performance' not as an amount dependent on dividends on the fund's investments. Which means that pensionairs will be payed according to predetermined tabulations. So, if the dividend from the fund is not large enough to cover the pension being payed out the balance have to be covered by the 'federal budget'. Increased taxes, that is. (Again; who's gonna pay?)

It is very popular to invest money in private and volontary pension sceems here in Norway, in addition to our - rather lavish, public pension system (about 66% of what you earned according to a certain 'career tabulation'). Nobody knows yet, but here the financial press indicates that 'enormous sums' has been lost. Most will get 'only crumbles' back after the financial world has got their lavish 'fees' and their investment is negative. - Showing that there isn't any real alternative to a public pension system.

Not to mention that huge sums of savings has been lost in share funds (very popular), hedge funds and other increasingly popular ways of speculation that thrives here in Norway.

All that is fine...

What I fear more is unemployment as a result of a building industry that has practically stopped and a world economy going into recession.

The crash on Wall Street hits us all...

 

[Olsen]

"I would like to discuss totalitarianism with you, but don't think this is the right place to do so."

- It is the right place - and it is very much the right time. What is happening around us is dramatic. What stopping you? Manners?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Quite a simplistic and unrealistic scenario, for several reasons (from the perspective of a US citizen)...

One, any discussion of a flat tax I have been aware of has had a realistic minimum level for taxes to be paid - for example, several years ago Forbes discussed a minimum of $40k+ for a family of four before the 17% tax kicked in. Other discussions have that range in the $20k's with a different flat rate.

Two, under the US current system of loopholes, shelters and incentives, some billionaires actually pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Warren Buffet claims to pay 17.7% of his $46million and the assistant 30% of her $60K.

Which is more fair?

I know your example was meant to be extreme, but carried this far, it fails to provide a meaningful perspective. Personally, I don't know if I could advocate a flat tax unless I saw all the specifics. But most arguments against one seem to fall along the same lines as yours, not taking into account the end result of the current "progressive" tax scheme, which in many cases results in lower rate for the wealthiest.

At that point, of course, it is no longer a flat tax.

Certes, I have no great problem with the kind of flat tax you describe, provided the threshold is set high enough; but that is how income tax was first introduced in the UK (to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, as I recall), and the threshold has fallen steadily in real terms.

Cheers,

R/