The American Dream?

I have a question: How much money does it cost to go to university for like 5 years? (In the USA)

 

Edited by Cent

Hehe, here in leftist Sweden, my education is totally FREE. They even pay me like 300 dollars a month, but that isn't enough, but I'll only take a job on the weekends...

You see we pay much taxes but most things are free. The state pays many things, which for example allows everyone, rich or poor, to go to the university. Good eh?

Originally posted by Cent Hehe, here in leftist Sweden, my education is totally FREE. They even pay me like 300 dollars a month, but that isn't enough, but I'll only take a job on the weekends... You see we pay much taxes but most things are free. The state pays many things, which for example allows everyone, rich or poor, to go to the university. Good eh?

So, does that mean that Sweden, as part of the West, also has a bloated middle class whose entitlements are not sustainable?

Incidentally, if you are paying those high taxes, education is not free, and those not at university are paying for those who are.

 

Originally posted by Cent Hehe, here in leftist Sweden, my education is totally FREE. They even pay me like 300 dollars a month, but that isn't enough, but I'll only take a job on the weekends... You see we pay much taxes but most things are free. The state pays many things, which for example allows everyone, rich or poor, to go to the university. Good eh?

Extraordinary!!! I thought that was only happening in Ceausescu's Romania!!!. Anyway, if there are so many educated people in Sweden, who is doing there the work that doesn't need education? And why are not all of you getting that free education?

Back to the thread: American Dream: a human standard that should not have been diminished. Thank you USA for sharing it with the rest of the world.

Edited by Cezar

"Extraordinary!!! I thought that was only happening in Ceausescu's Romania!!!. Anyway, if there are so many educated people in Sweden, who is doing there the work that doesn't need education? And why are not all of you getting that free education?"

The education level in Sweden is very high, the goverment goal is that 50% will go to the universities. Who ever wants to start can start.

"Incidentally, if you are paying those high taxes, education is not free, and those not at university are paying for those who are."

Well, also the dentists are free here until 18 years of age, and I've been going there like four or five times while others have been there 10 or 20 times, and I and other tax-payers are paying that. But that doesn't bother me, because this way EVERYONE can get the necessary stuff they need. Like medical care and free education. This system in my opinion a very good one, and that's why Sweden is ranked like top 5 in the world in the Human development index (sp?).

The richer you are the more you pay. Best solution to get rid of poverty. But still, a doctor in Sweden do get much more paid than a taxidriver, but they have the same opportunites in life, both had the chance to get a doctorsdegree, but they chose differently.

 

Originally posted by Cezar Tax credits for small business is good as long as you can control them to pay their taxes (small as they are they have). The more they are the bigger the control bureaucracy you create (auditing a small business is not much different than auditing Coca-Cola). That would lead to increase the taxation in order to sustain that bureaucracy (long live the IRS!).

I don't think I understand this logic very well. Seems what you are saying is that more small businesses inevitably leads to bigger auditing/tax collecting bureaucracy. If that's the correct understanding then I will follow that up with this. Small businesses have been and will continue to be taxed. A greater tax break, however, would spur more small business growth. Big business has and can evade tax loopholes as can small businesses yet the financial effect is immmense in comparison.

An example of a recent mistake was in General Motors wrongfull auditing of their own earnings. It was later discovered that they omitted something to the tune of approximately 2 billion dollars lost on top of their publically disclosed amount of last year.

A big corporation generally has worked out tax abatements with their local community. For example, Corp X surveys some property. They like what they see and want to build there. So they go to the mayor and city council to work out a cushy deal. Corp X says, "I will build a factory here as long as you do not ask us to pay city taxes". The Mayor and his council think it over. "Hmmm! Jobs for my community, income for families by not taxing Corp X" or "No way! You must pay up if you're going to do business here." The most likely result is that the big Corp X wins out and dictates a tax abatement with the promise of future jobs.

Small business rarely, if ever, has this type of negotiating advantage. In effect, it is the small business that rarely costs the IRS on an individual basis. The big businesses have the financial means, political clout and legal savvy to escape from various amounts of taxation. Money that local communities will not see. Perhaps in Romania the tax collecting structure is different and not as sufficient. However, in the US the big corporations definitely have evasive inguinity. 

Edited by Seko

Originally posted by hugoestr Based on prior experience, we must: 1. Tax, especially the wealthy, to pay out the debt 2. Have sustainable social programs. This means that we only have that which we can pay for. Most jobs and innovation in this country are created by small businesses. It makes sense then to support and protect small businesses to help the economy. 1.     Figure out a system to give affordable access to medicine to all Americans. This is one of the major reasons why jobs are not being created. 2.     Give small business tax credits 3.     Invest in the future by providing free tuition to deserving students in science and technology Just some ideas to play with.

Good ideas all.  The problem is that power is in the hands of the people most effected by tax increases proposed in #1 and don't want to pay taxes to support anything with the word "social" in it for #2.  But, as you know, it is an age-old struggle between the "have too much" and the "have nothing" segments of society.

Labor unions now only represent about 8% of the nation's workers and their influence is going the way of the passenger pigeon.  Without a labor shortage, workers have nearly no leverage in order to increase wages, improve health care, or request retirement benefits.  Businesses will just find someone who can work without such guarantees...and there is never a shortage of those people in the work force.  This actually ties into the immigration debate quite readily.

The "business knows best" approach to running an economy can only mean bad things for the country.  Sure, the economy is showing signs of growth, thanks to worker productivity, but it's at the expense of hourly wages and corporations keeping profits for shareholders.  I can never understand why people on the right put business interests ahead of a nation's own citizens.  To further my point:

Considering the odd legal fiction that deems a corporation a "person" in the eyes of the law, the feature documentary "The Corporation" employees a checklist, based on actual diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and DSM IV, the standard tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. What emerges is a disturbing diagnosis.     Self-interested, amoral, callous and deceitful, a corporation's operational principles make it anti-social. It breaches social and legal standards to get its way even while it mimics the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. It suffers no guilt. Diagnosis: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a psychopath.

  http://www.kottke.org/04/01/the-corporation

My own state had to raise the minimum wage because the business lobby and the politicians who love them refuse to give the poor a decent break, when they have most likely received many breaks themselves.  Fifteen years ago, when I was making the minimum wage, it couldn't buy me
I can't imagine the purchase power would be any better today, especially since the minimum wage hasn't been risen in nine years (while the legislators regularly give themselves pay raises).  What kind of message does that send to hardworking people?

Originally posted by Seko I don't think I understand this logic very well. Seems what you are saying is that more small businesses inevitably leads to bigger auditing/tax collecting bureaucracy. If that's the correct understanding then I will follow that up with this. Small businesses have been and will continue to be taxed. A greater tax break, however, would spur more small business growth. Big business has and can evade tax loopholes as can small businesses yet the financial effect is immmense in comparison. An example of a recent mistake was in General Motors wrongfull auditing of their own earnings. It was later discovered that they omitted something to the tune of approximately 2 billion dollars lost on top of their publically disclosed amount of last year. A big corporation generally has worked out tax abatements with their local community. For example, Corp X surveys some property. They like what they see and want to build there. So they go to the mayor and city council to work out a cushy deal. Corp X says, I will build a factory here as long as you do not ask us to pay city taxes. The Mayor and his council think it over. Hmmm! Jobs for my community, income for families by not taxing Corp X or No way! You must pay up if you're going to do business here. The most likely result is that the big Corp X wins out and dictates a tax abatement with the promise of future jobs. Small business rarely, if ever, has this type of negotiating advantage. In effect, it is the small business that rarely costs the IRS on an individual basis. The big businesses have the financial means, political clout and legal savvy to escape from various amounts of taxation. Money that local communities will not see. Perhaps in Romania the tax collecting structure is different and not as sufficient. However, in the US the big corporations definitely have evasive inguinity.  [/QUOTE #1 Small busines is a concept. People who run them are not. They are individuals. While most of them are (fairly) paying their taxes there are some who don't. If there are some who don't then the state must do something about it. It's about balance, in theory. It's like this: "if the balance between those who pay and those who don't is OK we don't need to increase the number of our auditors in order to control the phenomena".  But, as I said, it's not about what's designed, it's about what it is. An efficient IRS is an efficient bureaucracy and (be it here or elswhere, me, being a bureaucrat I know it too well) that is a contradiction. If things should be OK, a structuire like the IRS should come to the point of diminishing itself. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, you will never witness a bureacratic structure that will efficiently contribute to something like that. On the contrary, its behaviour would emphasyze the necessity of at least maintaing the structure, if not enlarging it. #2 Is bi/ug business a part of American Dream?. This should be subject to another thread, if you don't mind. BB (not the french lady) is not just an US issue it's about this whole da**ed world we live in. *I gotta go home, it's 10 pm here. This is my last post for today. **just try to edit this post. looks like ... I don't know. See you later!

#1 Small busines is a concept. People who run them are not. They are individuals. While most of them are (fairly) paying their taxes there are some who don't. If there are some who don't then the state must do something about it. It's about balance, in theory. It's like this: "if the balance between those who pay and those who don't is OK we don't need to increase the number of our auditors in order to control the phenomena".  But, as I said, it's not about what's designed, it's about what it is. An efficient IRS is an efficient bureaucracy and (be it here or elswhere, me, being a bureaucrat I know it too well) that is a contradiction. If things should be OK, a structuire like the IRS should come to the point of diminishing itself. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, you will never witness a bureacratic structure that will efficiently contribute to something like that. On the contrary, its behaviour would emphasyze the necessity of at least maintaing the structure, if not enlarging it.

#2 Is bi/ug business a part of American Dream?. This should be subject to another thread, if you don't mind. BB (not the french lady) is not just an US issue it's about this whole da**ed world we live in.

*I gotta go home, it's 10 pm here. This is my last post for today.

**just try to edit this post. looks like ... I don't know. See you later!

Edited by Cezar

Originally posted by Cezar Well, Hugoestr, as I said, I've never been in the USA. There were just some aspects of what you wrote that I've wanted to highlight. No offense meant, I'm just being kind of skeptic when it comes to the idea that an administration (being it US or Ro) would manage to get on with it. I've known some advisers from US that came here and from what they've told me I can tell you that bureaucrats out there are worse than here. It's not about the concept, it's about those who are in charge of it making it became a real thing. *I like the USA for what it meant/stiil means, but I deeply dislike mr. gwbush; while guys like him are in charge ....

I agree with you in several points: I dislike Bush myself And you may also noticed that most of our discussion is in the past tense: many of the ideas were actually put in place during the 1950s and 1960s.

I also agree that the current leadership doesn't have the will to do this. But hopefully we will get people who will do it.

Originally posted by Cezar #1 Small busines is a concept. People who run them are not. They are individuals. While most of them are (fairly) paying their taxes there are some who don't. If there are some who don't then the state must do something about it. It's about balance, in theory. It's like this: "if the balance between those who pay and those who don't is OK we don't need to increase the number of our auditors in order to control the phenomena". But, as I said, it's not about what's designed, it's about what it is. An efficient IRS is an efficient bureaucracy and (be it here or elswhere, me, being a bureaucrat I know it too well) that is a contradiction. If things should be OK, a structuire like the IRS should come to the point of diminishing itself. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen, you will never witness a bureacratic structure that will efficiently contribute to something like that. On the contrary, its behaviour would emphasyze the necessity of at least maintaing the structure, if not enlarging it. ...

Small business owners in the U.S., as a group, are very socially oriented and responsible. Many believe that using business models to fight poverty; some of it may work, some may not. However, they have interest in looking for solutions. Most support local charities, sport leagues, or civic events.

It makes sense: if you do business by building relationships, it pays to be seen as a pillar of your local community.

I have read and heard many stories of small business owners holding back from passing health care costs to their employers for years, until the costs are too high that it would destroy the business. Many hold back from firing people during bad periods too. There are exceptions, but as a group, they are much better than heads of big corporations.

And small businesses are also the biggest creators of jobs.

Since they give the greatest social return, it makes sense to support them the most.

And again, there are thousands of these businesses already in the U.S. The benefits will mainly support the existing system.

P.S. Bureaucrats are much better here than they are in Mexico. I don't know how it is in Romania, but in Mexico you had to bribe your way through government officials. I haven't paid one bribe in the U.S., and most of my interactions with government have been very good.

P.S.S. And the people at the IRS hotline are very helpful and polite