more tax greed!

Have you ever wondered what the tax rate is in other countries? Well I have!

First off, if you ever wanted to live in Denmark, forget it!! Switzerland is the place to be!

Denmark
Practical tax rate: 56%
Average pretax salary: $64,310
Average post-tax salary: $28,227
Sweden
Practical tax rate: 52%
Average pretax salary: $46,804
Average post-tax salary: $22,410
Belgium
Practical tax rate: 45%
Average pretax salary: $47,674
Average post-tax salary: $26,221
Germany
Practical tax rate: 30%
Average pretax salary: $42,369
Average post-tax salary: $29,658
Canada
Practical tax rate: 28%
Average pretax salary: $48,688
Average post-tax salary: $35,299
Ireland
Practical tax rate: 25%
Average pretax salary: $56,787
Average post-tax salary: $42,322
Greece
Practical tax rate: 22%
Average pretax salary: $19,189
Average post-tax salary: $14,967
Australia
Practical tax rate: 21%
Average pretax salary: $46,804
Average post-tax salary: $22,410
New Zealnad
Practical tax rate: 19%
Average pretax salary: $44,636
Average post-tax salary: $36,283
United States
Practical tax rate: 18% (but our corporate tax is 35%!)
Average pretax salary: $64,154
Average post-tax salary: $52,344
Russia
Practical tax rate: 13%
Average pretax salary: $9,720
Average post-tax salary: $8,456
United Kingdom
Practical tax rate: 13%
Average pretax salary: $46,252
Average post-tax salary: $40,169
Mexico
Practical tax rate: 13%
Average pretax salary: $9,812
Average post-tax salary: $8,537
China
Practical tax rate: 12%
Average pretax salary: $8,250
Average post-tax salary: $7,247
Japan
Practical tax rate: 10%
Average pretax salary: $39,089
Average post-tax salary: $35,279
Switzerland
Practical tax rate: 2%
Average pretax salary: $85,718
Average post-tax salary: $84,006
India
Practical tax rate: %
Average pretax salary: $1,670
Average post-tax salary: $1,670

taxing greed

Did you know, the median home price in Seattle is $777,000? I read that last week when I read an article about Seattle wanting to impose a "head tax" on big companies. Seattle has a lot of problems. More than they're saying, that's for sure. Anyway, yesterday I saw this followup article and I was just flabbergasted! I'm not 100% pro Amazon and I don't even drink Starbucks, but this seems wrong. It says that the city spent $68 million on homeless services last year. Now they're going to get an additional $48 million. But nobody is asking what the plan is. They say there are 10,000 homeless people in Seattle. I see the biggest problem...greed. The city could have put a cap on rent years ago. But they didn't I bet, because they didn't want tell someone how to run their business or how much they could make. Greed. Greed. Greed. They'll just tax them instead!

Seattle OKs tax on companies like Amazon to help homeless

PHUONG LE

    

PUBLISHED: MAY 15TH, 2018 - 8:51AM (EDT)

SEATTLE (AP) — Seattle's largest businesses such as Amazon and Starbucks will have to pay a new tax to help fund homeless services and affordable housing under a measure approved by city leaders.

The City Council unanimously passed a compromise plan Monday that taxes businesses making at least $20 million in gross revenues about $275 per full-time worker each year — lower than the $500 per worker initially proposed. The so-called "head tax" would raise roughly $48 million a year to build new affordable housing units and provide emergency homeless services.

The debate over who should pay to solve a housing crisis exacerbated by Seattle's rapid economic growth comes after weeks of tense exchanges, raucous meetings and a threat by Amazon, the city's largest employer, to stop construction planning on a 17-story building near its hometown headquarters.

Amazon, Starbucks and business groups sharply criticized the council's decision after Monday's vote. They called it a tax on jobs and questioned whether city officials were spending current resources effectively. One state Republican leader said he would seek legislation next year to make clear that a city tax on employees, wages or hours is illegal.

Seattle-based Starbucks had harsh words for its hometown leaders. It accused the city of spending without accountability while ignoring that hundreds of children sleep outside.

"If they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a 5-year-old child, no one believes they will be able to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction," Starbucks' John Kelly said in a statement.

But worker and church groups and others cheered the tax as a step toward building badly needed affordable housing in an affluent city where the income gap continues to widen and lower-income workers are being priced out.

"People are dying on the doorsteps of prosperity. This is the richest city in the state and in a state that has the most regressive tax system in the country," said councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who wanted a larger tax but called the compromise plan "a down payment" to build housing the city needs.

For Seattle's liberal City Council, the discussion Monday centered not so much on whether there should be a head tax but how big it should be. Four bill sponsors initially pitched a tax of $500 per full-time employee a year but a compromise proposal emerged over weekend after they couldn't muster the six votes needed to override a potential veto by Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Councilmember Lisa Herbold, a bill sponsor, said the revenue isn't enough to fully address the problem given the city's dire needs and human suffering but it was "the strongest proposal" they could put forward given the veto threat.

Proponents of the tax say too many people are suffering on the streets, and while city-funded programs found homes for 3,400 people last year, the problem deepens. The Seattle region had the third-highest number of homeless people in the U.S. and saw 169 homeless deaths last year. The city spent $68 million on homelessness last year and plans to spend even more this year. The tax will provide additional revenue.

"This legislation will help us address our homelessness crisis without jeopardizing critical jobs," Durkan said in a statement.

Other cities have implemented similar taxes, but critics say Seattle's tax could threaten the booming local economy and drive away jobs.

Nearly 600 large employers — roughly 3 percent — would pay the tax starting in 2019. Amazon, the city's largest employer with 45,000 workers, would take the biggest hit.

Amazon Vice President Drew Herdener said in a statement Monday that the company was disappointed.

While Amazon has resumed construction planning on the downtown building, he said "we remain apprehensive about the future created by the council's hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses, which forces us to question our growth here."

He noted that city revenues have grown dramatically and that the city "does not have a revenue problem — it has a spending efficiency problem."

Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez shot back that she was "equally disappointed" in Amazon's reaction to the council's vote and said she thinks "their tone in this message that is clearly hostile toward the city council is not what I expect from a business who continues to tell us that they want to be a partner on these issues."

Before the vote, she said the city "has an obligation to take care of the people who are surviving and suffering on our city streets."

Shannon Brown, 55, who has been living a tiny home at a south Seattle homeless encampment, said there's simply not enough housing for the city's poorest people.

"I live in a little shed, but it's better than living in a tent or in a sleeping bag on the street," she said. "There's no away I can afford to live in Seattle. I don't understand why businesses think it's wrong to help."

John Boufford with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades said he didn't understand the rhetoric against Amazon, which he noted provides good jobs for thousands of people.

"They're driving this economic engine," he said. "I'm confused about why the city of Seattle is fostering an adversarial relationship with businesses in this city."

Happy Monday...

Because it's MY blog! :-)

                            

Cultural Appropriation

What the hell is that anyway? 
I've heard the term before. I never really paid attention to it though. It just seemed like another made up thing for millennials to be angry about. I was more interested in it this week though, when I saw the story about the Utah high school senior who wore a Chinese style dress to her senior prom. 
You can find the story here; 
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Style/teen-defends-chinese-prom-dress-sparked-cultural-appropriation/story?id=54866211

I read a couple different versions of the story but I still don't get what some people were pissed off about. 

The dictionary says, the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that  you understand or respect this culture:
OK, so I think I understand what the term probably originally meant, but now like everything else it's being used in a haphazard way just to create conflict. I'm pretty sure that originally, cultural appropriation was taking some important/meaningful facet of a particular culture and turning it into something unimportant/common. I can't think of what that would be for me personally though.

Anyway...back to the girl in the dress. I don't think THAT was cultural appropriation. And if that's how we should be made to think about it, then I would say it's cultural appropriation for an African American to dye their hair blonde. If you are not of Polynesian descent and you attend a luau, isn't that cultural appropriation? How about celebrating cinco de mayo if you're not Hispanic? Or wearing a cross if you're not Christian? Or buying a kimono robe if you're not Japanese? Diana Krall is an amazing Jazz singer, but she's white. Shouldn't she find another career? What about food!?!?!?!? If I fix my own Americanized version of tacos, isn't that cultural appropriation? Oy!

Honestly, we don't need to worry about the government taking away our freedoms...we're doing a fine job of it all by ourselves!