Americans renouncing citizenship to evade FATCA

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Americans renouncing citizenship to evade FATCA

A Calgary lawyer says an increasing number of Americans living abroad are renouncing their U.S. citizenship because of a recently passed tax law.

Berg says last year about 3,000 Americans renounced their citizenship globally and that's expected to jump to 4,000 this year.

According to the U.S. State Department there are about 7 million U.S. citizens who live outside the country. It's estimated that between 700,000 and 2 million live in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/facta-has-americans-giving-up-citizenship-1.3604792

Being stupid and attempting to milk the expatriates who don't even make any $ in the US instead of going after the rich and corporations isn't working out so well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Makes sense from a business

Makes sense from a business point of view. Renouncing your citizenship to prevent a tax which isn't actually deserved. I'm not sure who I'd prefer to be if I were a citizen. I might consider Sweden or Iceland if I could afford moving overseas and making a living there.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i think i once read the US

i think i once read the US is the only country that taxes its citizens' foreign income. can anybody confirm?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Far as I know it's true. In

Far as I know it's true. In Canada, you only get taxed for money you make while residing in Canada. And even then there's some wiggle room if another country is taxing you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15641
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Yea just another new

 Yea just another new tactic of corporate blackmail.

There was a time when businesses owners actually valued the communities they got rich off of. The boom after WW2 proved that. Business owners like Henry Ford saw the importance of paying well. So does billinaire Nick Hanauer. The problem isn't greedy workers asshole, the problem is the mindet of the coporate world. If you think a race for cheap labor is good economics you are fucked in the head.

What you are excusing is big business bullying workers instead challenging them to invest in workers.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Trust Brian to completely

Trust Brian to completely miss the issue being discussed. Of course corporations have little or nothing to do with taxes. In more than one way no less.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'm sorry, but HOW exactly

i'm sorry, but HOW exactly are corporations responsible for taxing foreign income?


btw, henry ford was a fucking anti-semitic prick who treated his workers like garbage and busted unions any chance he got. i'm not sure what kind of weird ann coulter revisionist history brian has been reading.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure he'll respond by

I'm sure he'll respond by calling us all corporate puppets and/or supporters of religions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
no, he'll say it's all

no, he'll say it's all because we don't like him. which i keep telling him is exactly right: i for one probably wouldn't bother responding to most of his bullshit if he wasn't so flagrantly a poor excuse for a human being. yet he keeps saying it as if we've ever denied it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5417
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i'm sorry, but

iwbiek wrote:
i'm sorry, but HOW exactly are corporations responsible for taxing foreign income?
btw, henry ford was a fucking anti-semitic prick who treated his workers like garbage and busted unions any chance he got. i'm not sure what kind of weird ann coulter revisionist history brian has been reading.

And Nick made his billions from a company infamous for poor working conditions, low pay, and treating their employees like criminals. But you say one pretty line and Brian is a fan for life.

As to the OP, it seems completely nonsensical to me to ostracize those with dual citizenship. They tend to be more educated, more skilled and more experienced than average, exactly the type of people I would think we would want to encourage to come back to the US for the twilight years of their career to train the future generations.

I think it is just a way to take advantage of ignorant voters like Brian. They can put taxes on a very small and relatively silent population to appear to be soaking the evil rich, while not touching a penny of the wealthy who actually fund their campaigns. Kind of like Warren Buffett supporting higher income taxes pretending to be benevolent when he knows damn well he doesn't have significant income that is impacted by an income tax. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3802
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Yea just

Brian37 wrote:

 Yea just another new tactic of corporate blackmail.

There was a time when businesses owners actually valued the communities they got rich off of. The boom after WW2 proved that. Business owners like Henry Ford saw the importance of paying well. So does billinaire Nick Hanauer. The problem isn't greedy workers asshole, the problem is the mindet of the coporate world. If you think a race for cheap labor is good economics you are fucked in the head.

What you are excusing is big business bullying workers instead challenging them to invest in workers.

 

Sounds like the pro-slavery argument the South used before the war to justify their system. Slave owners invested in their employees and cared for their investment, while the same could not be said in the 'free' North.

In the good ole days, employees were tied to their company for life. Now employers have zero incentive to invest in workers if the workers are free agents. Do you want to go back to that system of slavery and company towns?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Only some slavers treated

Only some slavers treated their slaves semi-decently. None of them treated slaves well, unless they freed them.

In the 'good ole days' companies paid a decent wage to earn the loyalty of their employees. Today wages are shit so employees don't give a fuck.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3802
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In the 'good

Vastet wrote:
In the 'good ole days' companies paid a decent wage to earn the loyalty of their employees. Today wages are shit so employees don't give a fuck.

Yes, I know the insanity well. Complain about low wage/high prices due to too many people competing for jobs and housing. Then support politicians that want to flood the country with even more immigrants.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There wouldn't be a housing

There wouldn't be a housing shortage or prices that were beyond the majority if wages were higher.
There's still plenty of land to build on. It isn't being built on because most people can't afford to build on it.
And if wages were higher, there'd be a lot more people spending, which would require businesses to hire more people to service them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5417
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Only some

Vastet wrote:
Only some slavers treated their slaves semi-decently. None of them treated slaves well, unless they freed them.

In an absolute moral sense, however there is truth to the point that at times in US history, being a Freeman in the north led to much worse living conditions than being a slave. Part of the reason that reconstruction was such a violent and turbulent time for blacks that were suddenly free with nothing and no obvious path to support themselves and their families.

 

Quote:

In the 'good ole days' companies paid a decent wage to earn the loyalty of their employees. Today wages are shit so employees don't give a fuck.

When exactly were these mythological good ole days? It doesn't even make sense that companies en masse would pay more to earn loyalty. Paying a premium only earns loyalty if the employees other options pay less. If most companies are doing the same thing, employees have no economic incentive to stay.

One of the reasons Ford raised wages so high was to beat his competitors while maintaining the ridiculously strict intrusion into his employees personal lives (about half of his great $5 pay was conditional on what he considered "American" behavior) Once several companies start offering higher pay, any such benefit disappears. Throughout history, relative wages have climbed and stagnated as employers attempt to offer better than their competitors, while trying to keep overall costs down. Ford himself got bit when he attempted to raise wages a second time and failed to get any benefit of reduced turnover, instead just ending up less profitable than his competitors. There can be great benefits to paying relatively high wages, but all of them disappear if your competition matches you and none of them are guaranteed since wages are a significant, but far from the only factor that influences a person's choice of where to work.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:In an

Beyond Saving wrote:
In an absolute moral sense, however there is truth to the point that at times in US history, being a Freeman in the north led to much worse living conditions than being a slave. Part of the reason that reconstruction was such a violent and turbulent time for blacks that were suddenly free with nothing and no obvious path to support themselves and their families.

I'd call that a failing of the North more than a success of the South. It's a failing of today too.

Beyond Saving wrote:
When exactly were these mythological good ole days?

The 50's through 70's. Maybe the tail end of the 40's too, but that's not something I can actually say.

Beyond Saving wrote:
It doesn't even make sense that companies en masse would pay more to earn loyalty.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Paying a premium only earns loyalty if the employees other options pay less. If most companies are doing the same thing, employees have no economic incentive to stay.

You're looking at it far too narrowly. Why would you join a competitor for the same wages? It takes effort to find a job. Provided you are competent at your current job and you make enough to own a house and car or two and raise a family and feed everyone and still have some $ left over, why would you invest time and effort to have exactly or nearly exactly the same conditions somewhere else? You're comfortable. Doing anything to risk that makes no sense.

I don't know enough about Ford to discuss him, his tactics, and their successes or failures.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Throughout history, relative wages have climbed and stagnated as employers attempt to offer better than their competitors, while trying to keep overall costs down.

Because of unrestricted capitalism. If wages kept up with inflation, we'd be sitting between $18 & $20 per hour just to work as a waiter or at Walmart. If wages kept up with executive pay scales, we'd be around $30 per hour. For a minimum wage.

When regulations force companies to keep wages in line with inflation at least, companies can't profit by having much lower wages than other companies. From what I grasp of your description of Ford, he found the first increase successful. It probably was enough to make his employees comfortable. You can't get more comfortable than comfortable though, so when he tried doing it again nothing came of it. Doubtless some employees were more motivated, but the majority just want to have enough money so they don't have to worry about money. They don't want to be richer than god, just comfortable.

When people are comfortable, they buy things and pay people to do things for them. Which gives business more money and forces business to hire more people to service their new customers which is the very definition of a positive feedback loop.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5417
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The 50's

Vastet wrote:
The 50's through 70's. Maybe the tail end of the 40's too, but that's not something I can actually say.

If employers were so kind and generous during that era, why did it experience a spike in violent strikes and especially "wildcat strikes" (strikes that were started without the authorization of union leadership), and why were anti-capitalist movements able to gain so much support? Just listen to the popular music from the time. Were they just ungrateful assholes? 

 

Quote:
You're looking at it far too narrowly. Why would you join a competitor for the same wages? It takes effort to find a job. Provided you are competent at your current job and you make enough to own a house and car or two and raise a family and feed everyone and still have some $ left over, why would you invest time and effort to have exactly or nearly exactly the same conditions somewhere else? You're comfortable. Doing anything to risk that makes no sense.

An employee might make a lateral move for a number of reasons. Maybe for a closer commute, maybe because their supervisor is a dick or maybe because a friend or old supervisor they liked convinces them to. In the 90's, such lateral transitions were common because the labor market was skewed in favor of employees. And you are exactly right, wages were high enough that simply offering a little more money wasn't enough to motivate. That is my point, money only buys so much loyalty, once you reach a comfort level other intangibles become more important- such as paid time off, flexibility with scheduling and creating an environment that people actually want to (or at least don't mind) working in.

Since the recession when the labor market tightened, it is more of those types of things that have started disappearing. The interesting thing is that lateral movement declined substantially and is just now starting to pick up. Many point to the lack of lateral movement among the workforce in the mid 20th century as proof that employers were higher quality and cared more for their employees, but I would suggest that it had more to do with the employees having fewer viable options. People didn't  work for a company for 40 years because they thought it was the best job ever, they did it because they had to. In the 60's, if your boss was a dick you tolerated it because you had nowhere to go. The 90s provided more options and by then, it was far more likely your spouse worked so essentials could be paid for during the transition. Given a realistic ability to move jobs, people did.

When Ford raised wages dramatically, it was during an economic boom and a period of significant lateral movement in the labor force. People would quit their jobs knowing they could start at the factory next door tomorrow.

 

Quote:
Because of unrestricted capitalism. If wages kept up with inflation, we'd be sitting between $18 & $20 per hour just to work as a waiter or at Walmart. If wages kept up with executive pay scales, we'd be around $30 per hour. For a minimum wage. When regulations force companies to keep wages in line with inflation at least, companies can't profit by having much lower wages than other companies.

If wages only matched inflation in terms of actual buying power they would be about half of what they are now. In 1950, only about 25-30% of a person's income was available for non-essentials, today almost 50% of income is spent on non-essentials. Which is probably why we see a much lower level of unionization and protests today, because even poor people live in relative comfort. Mostly thanks to the significant deflation we've experienced among most necessities. Even Brian manages not to starve and manages to have the luxury of an internet connection. If you were to live only buying the exact items (or a direct modern substitute) a typical worker in the 50s bought, you could live very cheaply. The reality is that we have higher expectations today.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If

Beyond Saving wrote:
If employers were so kind and generous during that era, why did it experience a spike in violent strikes and especially "wildcat strikes" (strikes that were started without the authorization of union leadership), and why were anti-capitalist movements able to gain so much support? Just listen to the popular music from the time. Were they just ungrateful assholes? 

I don't know enough of American history to make any claims on that, but it sounds like a psychological reaction to a multitude of things that changed in that era. Women were being integrated, blacks were gaining rights, workers were experiencing prosperity and power they didn't have before, WWII had just ended, the cold war had taken its place, and lots more. Too many things changed too quickly to put all the wrinkles on one subject.

Beyond Saving wrote:
An employee might make a lateral move for a number of reasons. Maybe for a closer commute, maybe because their supervisor is a dick or maybe because a friend or old supervisor they liked convinces them to. In the 90's, such lateral transitions were common because the labor market was skewed in favor of employees. And you are exactly right, wages were high enough that simply offering a little more money wasn't enough to motivate. That is my point, money only buys so much loyalty, once you reach a comfort level other intangibles become more important- such as paid time off, flexibility with scheduling and creating an environment that people actually want to (or at least don't mind) working in.

They might have been common, but they were never so common that those people outweighed the people who stayed put. You can see just from census data that most people spend their whole lives in one place. That even extended families tend to root in a community and stay there.

I don't know how you think 50% of wages goes to non-essentials. I've never had a job that took less than half my paycheque just to pay rent. It's closer to 60%. Another 20-30% for food and bills and the means to get to work. I've never in my life had a job where I had much cash left once I spent what I had to just to keep my job. And I've had jobs that gave me more than minimum wage. Even something as simple as buying a $500 entertainment based piece of technology takes months of saving more often than not.

I fully agree there's a limit to how much you can pay the average person to motivate them and breed loyalty, but you'll rarely get loyalty from someone who depends on government and food banks to make it through the month because you don't pay them enough to survive without.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Since the recession when the labor market tightened, it is more of those types of things that have started disappearing. The interesting thing is that lateral movement declined substantially and is just now starting to pick up. Many point to the lack of lateral movement among the workforce in the mid 20th century as proof that employers were higher quality and cared more for their employees, but I would suggest that it had more to do with the employees having fewer viable options. People didn't  work for a company for 40 years because they thought it was the best job ever, they did it because they had to. In the 60's, if your boss was a dick you tolerated it because you had nowhere to go. The 90s provided more options and by then, it was far more likely your spouse worked so essentials could be paid for during the transition. Given a realistic ability to move jobs, people did.

If wages only matched inflation in terms of actual buying power they would be about half of what they are now. In 1950, only about 25-30% of a person's income was available for non-essentials, today almost 50% of income is spent on non-essentials. Which is probably why we see a much lower level of unionization and protests today, because even poor people live in relative comfort. Mostly thanks to the significant deflation we've experienced among most necessities. Even Brian manages not to starve and manages to have the luxury of an internet connection. If you were to live only buying the exact items (or a direct modern substitute) a typical worker in the 50s bought, you could live very cheaply. The reality is that we have higher expectations today.

Statistics refute that. Wages have (effectively) been reduced while cost of living has increased. I could have bought a house 60 years ago with the wages I now struggle to pay rent with. It costs more than $700 per month for a really shitty bachelor apartment in a bad part of town. I'm looking at $900+ for a fairly nice apartment in a mediocre part of town. Well over $1200 for a good apartment in a good part of town. If minimum wages were $14 per hour, that would be 53% of my paycheques each month.

Wages aren't $14 per hour. It's $11.25 here. It was $6.25 just a few years ago, completely unlivable. I needed 4 roommates just to rent a shitty condo and still afford food.
~$1800 per month at full time now. So even a mediocre apartment takes half my income all on its own. Certainly a lot better than a few years ago, but still ridiculous. And there's no way in hell that half my wages would ever be able to go to non-essentials.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3802
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There wouldn't

Vastet wrote:
There wouldn't be a housing shortage or prices that were beyond the majority if wages were higher. There's still plenty of land to build on. It isn't being built on because most people can't afford to build on it. And if wages were higher, there'd be a lot more people spending, which would require businesses to hire more people to service them.

Explain. You force contruction workers, truck drivers, lumberjacks, etc.. to be paid more to build a house. Who eats that cost except the home buyer? Plus you build houses, the goverment must then build roads, water services, schools, fire houses, etc.. Where does this money come from?

Only reducing population and worker productivity have a positive effect.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
so why not practice what you

so why not practice what you preach and off yourself? one less mouth for all of us to worry about.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Explain. You force

EXC wrote:
Explain. You force contruction workers, truck drivers, lumberjacks, etc.. to be paid more to build a house. Who eats that cost except the home buyer? Plus you build houses, the goverment must then build roads, water services, schools, fire houses, etc.. Where does this money come from?

It doesn't effect the price as much as regular market shifts can. So what if the homeowner has to pay $50k more in the end when he or she makes 10-20k more per year?

The government could easily afford to build roads and sewers right now. With the extra tax income it would get from a more productive population, and by cutting losses on social programmes that wouldn't be as necessary, it would be simple enough for them to build what they had to.

EXC wrote:
Only reducing population and worker productivity have a positive effect.

Too slow and also impossible in a democracy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3802
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC

 

You'll never get that government doesn't have a magic wand, that they can't wave because people like me won't let them. People on the bottom can't afford housing now. You increase everyone's wages the same amount, housing is just as unaffordable.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You keep thinking everyone

You keep thinking everyone needs exactly the same pay raise which has nothing to do with anything. My proposition makes everything more affordable, housing included.

Your ideas will never work. There is absolutely no way to reduce population growth except by killing people. You don't even have a fraction of a fraction of the support necessary to do that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3802
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You keep

Vastet wrote:
You keep thinking everyone needs exactly the same pay raise which has nothing to do with anything. My proposition makes everything more affordable, housing included. Your ideas will never work. There is absolutely no way to reduce population growth except by killing people. You don't even have a fraction of a fraction of the support necessary to do that.

So Mother Nature does the killing for us. That is the way she always takes care of overpopulation of any species. But it ridiculous for anyone to claim they have a solution for human suffiering by just letting nature take it course.

False claim. China did this with goverment intervention. True their was more abortions, but less killing than under Chairman Mao. Countries have reduced growth by not letting religious groups make laws againt birth control. Europe, USA and Canada used to reduce growth by having controlled immigration, but not anymore since progressives and the rich in search of cheap labor/expensive housing have taken over.

Explain the math, you double everyone's wages. So everything costs twice as much. That does not make housing more affordable. But, I'll give you that you may be soaking some wealth out of people that have savings in cash and giving it to non-savers. Is that good for society to punish savers? Punish people that work hard and save by making their money worth less?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13128
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So Mother Nature

EXC wrote:
So Mother Nature does the killing for us. That is the way she always takes care of overpopulation of any species.

Well nature is certainly taking its sweet time about it. How long do we have to sit on our thumbs before nature takes its course? And who's to say nature won't take that extra step and wipe us out altogether?

EXC wrote:
False claim. China did this with goverment intervention. True their was more abortions, but less killing than under Chairman Mao.

False claim. China's policy so completely failed that China abandoned the policy and is attempting to find women for all the men now that the population is so dominantly male.

EXC wrote:
Countries have reduced growth by not letting religious groups make laws againt birth control. Europe, USA and Canada used to reduce growth by having controlled immigration, but not anymore since progressives and the rich in search of cheap labor/expensive housing have taken over.

Countries didn't see reduced population growth until education was increased and made available to all.

Canada has no separation of church and state on a solid foundational document like the US. But the US had such a separation back in the 1700's. Why was it the 1900's before population growth slowed if laws against religious involvement with contraceptive laws were so significant a factor?

EXC wrote:
Explain the math, you double everyone's wages. So everything costs twice as much.

Explain your own math. How does every expense magically double when wages are doubled?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.