Failedagent_IHB
New member
Which countries have lower overall tax rates than the USA but are also better places to live and work?
Better Low Tax Countires?
- Thread starter Failedagent_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
PeterUK_IHB
New member
Tony Blair said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in and how many want out."
Failedagent_IHB
New member
The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
Winex;
Like John McCain and Arnold were never going to raise our taxes? The days of magical thinking are over. As long as Republicans spend money, they will have to pass taxes. I think Reagan's inability to cut taxes and balance the budget was proof enough. The Republican party has lost ALL credibility with the argument that they can reduce taxes, reduce spending, and balance a budget.
Winex;
Like John McCain and Arnold were never going to raise our taxes? The days of magical thinking are over. As long as Republicans spend money, they will have to pass taxes. I think Reagan's inability to cut taxes and balance the budget was proof enough. The Republican party has lost ALL credibility with the argument that they can reduce taxes, reduce spending, and balance a budget.
Both John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger are Republican In Name Only. If you research what happened under President Reagan, you will find that tax revenues more than doubled under his term in office. The problem is that spending increased faster than growth in revenue. Had President Reagan had the advantages that President (George W.) Bush had, I have no doubt that we would have gotten a smaller, less intrusive government.
Mark my words, you are about to see a porkfest unlike anything experienced before. Some of the things coming out of Obama's economic stimulus program are just outrageous. There's actually an proposal to spend $6 million to make artificial snow in Minnesota. I fail to see how this will stimulate anything beyond the people who are pocketing the money. Another proposal is to use some of the money to fight prostitution in Dayton, Ohio. Correct me if I am mistaken, but if we spend money to put people (prostitutes) out of work, won't that hurt the economy? And "Universal Healthcare" is going to make Social Security and Medicare seem like exercises in fiscal restraint.
Mark my words, you are about to see a porkfest unlike anything experienced before. Some of the things coming out of Obama's economic stimulus program are just outrageous. There's actually an proposal to spend $6 million to make artificial snow in Minnesota. I fail to see how this will stimulate anything beyond the people who are pocketing the money. Another proposal is to use some of the money to fight prostitution in Dayton, Ohio. Correct me if I am mistaken, but if we spend money to put people (prostitutes) out of work, won't that hurt the economy? And "Universal Healthcare" is going to make Social Security and Medicare seem like exercises in fiscal restraint.
O
Oscar_IHB
Guest
[quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?</blockquote>
Before your question can be answered you must first establish what you mean by "a decent life" and "maintain society". Without defining objective parameters and minimum standards, you might as well ask which country has greener trees, bluer skies, or colder ice.
<blockquote>Winex;
Like John McCain and Arnold were never going to raise our taxes? The days of magical thinking are over. As long as Republicans spend money, they will have to pass taxes. I think Reagan's inability to cut taxes and balance the budget was proof enough. The Republican party has lost ALL credibility with the argument that they can reduce taxes, reduce spending, and balance a budget.</blockquote>
Your assertions are wrong on a number of points: Any political party can spend without raising taxes, as shown by a number of Democratic-controlled administrations, Congresses, and States. Reagan's inability to cut taxes *and* balance the budget was largely due to the House of Representatives (controlled by Democrats) passing spending bills that didn't include actual cuts in spending, even though they did include cuts in taxes. Clinton had a House that was controlled by Republicans for most of his Presidency, a House that initially passed a budget that reduced taxes, reduced spending, and balanced the budget... which Clinton vetoed.
Before you respond with "Bush this and Bush that", I readily concede that the Republicans in Congress supported W's spending habits. In doing so, they abandoned the Conservative principles that brought them to power and in turn were kicked out of office. But, there is a key difference between Reagan and Bush: Reagan kept asking for spending cuts, while Bush abandoned that tack after 9/11. You are attempting to trash a policy that has succeeded when implemented in full and you are ignoring the facts in the process.
Before your question can be answered you must first establish what you mean by "a decent life" and "maintain society". Without defining objective parameters and minimum standards, you might as well ask which country has greener trees, bluer skies, or colder ice.
<blockquote>Winex;
Like John McCain and Arnold were never going to raise our taxes? The days of magical thinking are over. As long as Republicans spend money, they will have to pass taxes. I think Reagan's inability to cut taxes and balance the budget was proof enough. The Republican party has lost ALL credibility with the argument that they can reduce taxes, reduce spending, and balance a budget.</blockquote>
Your assertions are wrong on a number of points: Any political party can spend without raising taxes, as shown by a number of Democratic-controlled administrations, Congresses, and States. Reagan's inability to cut taxes *and* balance the budget was largely due to the House of Representatives (controlled by Democrats) passing spending bills that didn't include actual cuts in spending, even though they did include cuts in taxes. Clinton had a House that was controlled by Republicans for most of his Presidency, a House that initially passed a budget that reduced taxes, reduced spending, and balanced the budget... which Clinton vetoed.
Before you respond with "Bush this and Bush that", I readily concede that the Republicans in Congress supported W's spending habits. In doing so, they abandoned the Conservative principles that brought them to power and in turn were kicked out of office. But, there is a key difference between Reagan and Bush: Reagan kept asking for spending cuts, while Bush abandoned that tack after 9/11. You are attempting to trash a policy that has succeeded when implemented in full and you are ignoring the facts in the process.
Just move to a state without income tax -> you'll instantly make X% more! See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#U.S._States_without_a_personal_income_tax
I agree with Oscar. Plus higher taxes doesn't mean the government is being inefficient or wasteful. Money goes to pay for:
1- "free" university -> excellent!
2- "free" health care -> not bad!
3- 30 vacation days per year before public holidays -> fantastic!
4- marijuana therapy -> sweet!
Wouldn't you pay an extra 10% a year to get these benefits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#U.S._States_without_a_personal_income_tax
I agree with Oscar. Plus higher taxes doesn't mean the government is being inefficient or wasteful. Money goes to pay for:
1- "free" university -> excellent!
2- "free" health care -> not bad!
3- 30 vacation days per year before public holidays -> fantastic!
4- marijuana therapy -> sweet!
Wouldn't you pay an extra 10% a year to get these benefits?
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
You will also need to carefully look at any methodology for gathering the statistics.
California's VLF comes to mind. Technically, about 2/3rds of your "Tax" isn't tax. Likewise, would you consider your California State Parks parking pass or day permit ($150 annually or $15/visit) a tax or side effect. Then it's FICA, Sales, intangiables, etc.
California's VLF comes to mind. Technically, about 2/3rds of your "Tax" isn't tax. Likewise, would you consider your California State Parks parking pass or day permit ($150 annually or $15/visit) a tax or side effect. Then it's FICA, Sales, intangiables, etc.
momopi_IHB
New member
[quote author="Failedagent" date=1230730944]Which countries have lower overall tax rates than the USA but are also better places to live and work?</blockquote>
Most off-shore tax shelters are good only for those who are already wealthy, or looking to setup an off-shore corporation.
For the average joe, it makes more sense to make/save money here, then invest/spend it where the cost of living is much lower. If done properly with sufficient passive income, you can retire early and not work.
Most off-shore tax shelters are good only for those who are already wealthy, or looking to setup an off-shore corporation.
For the average joe, it makes more sense to make/save money here, then invest/spend it where the cost of living is much lower. If done properly with sufficient passive income, you can retire early and not work.
[quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.
earthbm_IHB
New member
The only country like this of any size is Switzerland, and it is due to most decisions being taken via referendum. Swiss Federal Government is tiny.
awgee_IHB
New member
[quote author="WINEX" date=1230802358][quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.
earthbm_IHB
New member
It is impossible to claim that one is better than the other. It is just what it is, small government is not possible in the country the size of US, not because it is too large to govern for a small government, but because the gap between individual effort to change anything and the impact it makes is too large. Hence apathy.
Failedagent_IHB
New member
As I have said in other posts, I feel sorry for conservatives in America because the Republican party does not represent conservative ideals of minimalist government. THis thread is still off course because I am still wondering which country shows a more ideal balance between quality of life and tax rates. In my opinion, there is unlikely to be a better country than America, but I could easily be wrong.
[quote author="awgee" date=1230898533][quote author="WINEX" date=1230802358][quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.
awgee_IHB
New member
[quote author="WINEX" date=1230908518][quote author="awgee" date=1230898533][quote author="WINEX" date=1230802358][quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.</blockquote>
Oh. Ok. I change what I said.
Republican and Democrat politicians are both increasing central government such that there is basically no difference between the parties.
Have you compared the amount of spent money the Bush administration has approved to the past administrations?
Wake up Wine.
The Republican party is no longer a party of conservatives, and it onlyu gives lip service to the Constitution. Correct priciples and ideals will not be followed until people stop voting for a personality and start voting for truth.
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.</blockquote>
Oh. Ok. I change what I said.
Republican and Democrat politicians are both increasing central government such that there is basically no difference between the parties.
Have you compared the amount of spent money the Bush administration has approved to the past administrations?
Wake up Wine.
The Republican party is no longer a party of conservatives, and it onlyu gives lip service to the Constitution. Correct priciples and ideals will not be followed until people stop voting for a personality and start voting for truth.
[quote author="awgee" date=1230934868][quote author="WINEX" date=1230908518][quote author="awgee" date=1230898533][quote author="WINEX" date=1230802358][quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.</blockquote>
Oh. Ok. I change what I said.
Republican and Democrat politicians are both increasing central government such that there is basically no difference between the parties.
Have you compared the amount of spent money the Bush administration has approved to the past administrations?
Wake up Wine.
The Republican party is no longer a party of conservatives, and it onlyu gives lip service to the Constitution. Correct priciples and ideals will not be followed until people stop voting for a personality and start voting for truth.</blockquote>
There are things that I like about the Bush administration, and things that I clearly don't like. Obviously the lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by Republicans controlling Congress in the first 6 years of the Bush administration was distressing. (Interestingly enough, 65% of Obama voters polled in exit polls thought that Republicans were in control of the House and Senate at the time of the election) And it wasn't just the growth of existing programs, but the creation of new programs such as the prescription drug program that was Karl Rove's pet project around 2004.
But realistically speaking, the best hope for our country lies in the Republican party. But we need true Republicans (i.e. Reagan Republicans), not RINOs.
Also, for the record, I actually did switch party allegiances between 1990 and 2001. The catalyst to move away from the Republican Party in 1990 was President Bush enacting the largest federal tax increase in history. My return to my Republican roots was caused by the Libertarian Party reaction to September 11th. Simply put, isolationism was a great idea in the 18th century, but the concept falls apart when a handful of people armed with box cutters can successfully attack the military and economic heart of our country. I believe that prosecution of the global war against Islamo fascists was one of the things that Bush got right. Though that having been said, I think that enacting the equivalent of the Marshal Plan while war is still being waged is a mistake. It feeds into the strength of our enemy. With asymmetric warfare, a $500 car bomb can destroy construction on a $5 million dollar oil pipeline.
</blockquote>
I would say that your entire thesis is flawed. Government should only exist to do things for society that are unquestionably necessary, but that would have a prohibitive cost for individuals to provide on their own. Defense and basic infrastructure are the primary things that come to mind. In other areas, government needs to stay out of the way. The overhead they bring to providing solutions far exceeds the benefits derived from them inserting themselves in our lives.</blockquote>
Yes. And that is why it is important to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Republican politicians now create larger and more intrusive government than Democrats.</blockquote>
Unfortunately you are about to find out how wrong you are. This $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill that is about to be rammed through will be a porkfest unlike anything ever seen before.</blockquote>
Oh. Ok. I change what I said.
Republican and Democrat politicians are both increasing central government such that there is basically no difference between the parties.
Have you compared the amount of spent money the Bush administration has approved to the past administrations?
Wake up Wine.
The Republican party is no longer a party of conservatives, and it onlyu gives lip service to the Constitution. Correct priciples and ideals will not be followed until people stop voting for a personality and start voting for truth.</blockquote>
There are things that I like about the Bush administration, and things that I clearly don't like. Obviously the lack of fiscal restraint demonstrated by Republicans controlling Congress in the first 6 years of the Bush administration was distressing. (Interestingly enough, 65% of Obama voters polled in exit polls thought that Republicans were in control of the House and Senate at the time of the election) And it wasn't just the growth of existing programs, but the creation of new programs such as the prescription drug program that was Karl Rove's pet project around 2004.
But realistically speaking, the best hope for our country lies in the Republican party. But we need true Republicans (i.e. Reagan Republicans), not RINOs.
Also, for the record, I actually did switch party allegiances between 1990 and 2001. The catalyst to move away from the Republican Party in 1990 was President Bush enacting the largest federal tax increase in history. My return to my Republican roots was caused by the Libertarian Party reaction to September 11th. Simply put, isolationism was a great idea in the 18th century, but the concept falls apart when a handful of people armed with box cutters can successfully attack the military and economic heart of our country. I believe that prosecution of the global war against Islamo fascists was one of the things that Bush got right. Though that having been said, I think that enacting the equivalent of the Marshal Plan while war is still being waged is a mistake. It feeds into the strength of our enemy. With asymmetric warfare, a $500 car bomb can destroy construction on a $5 million dollar oil pipeline.
mediaboyz_IHB
New member
[quote author="Failedagent" date=1230787729]The purpose of the question is to examine which countries manage to make a decent life for their citizens with a lower tax rate than America. In my opinion it is probably necessary to have a fairly high tax base in order to maintain society, but I am not sure. Perhaps there are countries that manage to better for less. Maybe New Zealand?</blockquote>
The Principality of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco">Monaco</a> has no income tax <strong>if</strong> you can become one of its citizens.
There are some hurdles and the rub is you have to be wealthy / well known, <a href="http://www.palais.mc/monaco/x-net/internet-palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/biography/biography.391.html">Prince Albert II</a> has to approve, limited approvals per year, etc.
Monaco is a beautiful country. If you are ever in Europe, I'd highly recommend Monaco and the French Rivera.
The Principality of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco">Monaco</a> has no income tax <strong>if</strong> you can become one of its citizens.
There are some hurdles and the rub is you have to be wealthy / well known, <a href="http://www.palais.mc/monaco/x-net/internet-palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/biography/biography.391.html">Prince Albert II</a> has to approve, limited approvals per year, etc.
Monaco is a beautiful country. If you are ever in Europe, I'd highly recommend Monaco and the French Rivera.
Failedagent_IHB
New member
Monaco is not exactly a low tax country if you have to pay the occupation tax (similar to property tax ) and you are not a billionair. It is actually not at all cheap to live in Monaco, it only cheap to earn your money outside Monaco and keep a residence address there. Even THAT costs a lot money, you still need to be very wealthy.
