Fat is a type of crazy

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, you are using an apples to oranges comparison.  There is no such thing as a dodgy deduction, or a tax shelter.  There are legitimate deductions passed by the tax code that people use whether that is companies or individuals to lower the taxes they pay.  Is a 401(k) a dodgy deduction, how about child care expenses, moving expenses, state income taxes, number of dependents are they "dodgy"  How about Joe Biden declaring himself to be a Sub Chapter S corporation so he paid less tax.  Is that "dodgy" 





 One talked about company is Amazon who paid little in recent years in income taxes.  Amazon lost billions in its first years and the tax law says you can deduct losses in prior years from current income.  Is that "dodgy"  No they are paying on the "net" difference between what they earned in current years offset by losses in the prior years.  Or are you thinking that companies should only pay when they earn money and they eat 100% of the losses in years that they lose money. 

One way or another after all the deductions, scams, tax shelters, off shore accounts, accelerated depreciation and whatever other delusions you have about people escaping taxes are, the top 1% still pay in the USA 40% of all the personal income tax, and the bottom 90% still pay only 39%.   The issue is not tax rate but hard dollars, who paid the most and that is not the bottom 90% of taxpayers in the USA. 

Now if you want people who really dodge paying taxes, it is not the wealthy it is the people working for cash in the black market.   They are involved in either illegal activities such as drug trafficking or perform labor for cash only thereby avoiding any unemployment tax, Medicare tax, social security tax, or federal, state, and local income taxes.  But it is much more PC to point the finger at Jeff Bezos than it is at the electrician who is hiding his income by being paid only in cash. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/biden-lowered-his-taxes-in-a-way-that-obama-tried-to-prevent-2019-07-10

The examples I gave are legal - I did not say otherwise. It is dodgy, from an outsiders point of view, if the tax code does not actively work to ensure businesses and individuals are not using that code to significantly reduce income and therefore  tax.

I am not saying people finding ways to reduce tax are bad, anyone would want to do so, but as Warren Buffet points out - higher taxes on the richest 1% of Americans and changes to the tax code to prevent tax avoidance is a fairer outcome . I don't think a 5 or 10 per cent increase on those earning more than say over $500,000 or $1,000,000 in income per year, and shutting down loopholes that those with the best lawyers can take advantage of, would mean there is no incentive to earn money.  Build bridges and lots of other stuff with the money that the corporations and the rich benefit from the most. 

Of course those outside the tax system, and those not declaring full income from the tradesman plumber to your local restaurant who hide the cash, is a huge issue but that doesn't mean the tax system cannot be made fairer. I feel the tax office should keep hiring auditors until that auditor does not pay his or her way in finding omitted income. 

23 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You are mistaking tax rates for taxes paid.  Of the total income tax paid  I repeat paid, after tax breaks, loopholes and whatever other dodges you think exist, the top 1% pay, I repeat pay, 40% of all the tax.  The bottom 90% pay I repeat pay 39% of all the personal income tax.  The wealthy top 1% earn 21% of all the income reported, but pay 40% of the taxes.  The top 5% of taxpayers earn 36.5% of all income reported but pay 60.3%.  The bottom 50% earn 11.6% of all of the income but pay only 2.9% of the federal income tax.   47% of all returns in the USA pay zero, I repeat zero.  That is why it is so disingenuous when the left quotes that any tax cut benefits mostly the wealthy.  Well DUH, it you cut taxes those who pay the most would benefit the most.  Also, unless you are a product of new math, how can you possibly give a tax cut to 47% of the taxpayers who are already paying nothing.  Even if you cut taxes out entirely - 100%  for the entire bottom 50% of all income earners, that would amount to only a tax break of 2.9%.  Which would be less than if you gave only a 5% reduction in taxes to the top 5%.  

Also that lower rate (cow  excrement) is also a half truth.  If I own 10% of Apple I by default pay 10% of the taxes that Apple or any other company I similarly own.  So if Apple pays hypothetically $1 billion in taxes, my share of those taxes is $100 million.  Then if Apple distributes the remaining $900 million to me in the form of a dividend, I get taxed again on the same money.  It would be 21% on income earned at the corporate level, and ordinary dividends top rate is 37%.  So after taxes not including any state or local income taxes the wealthy investor paid indirectly through their company ownership and directly on their personal income tax return a combined 57.1% on that income.  Show me where that secretary or blue collar worker pays anything like that rate.  Ignoring the tax paid by the corporation on that same income is outright lying.  If I am a stockholder, I am an owner, and any taxes paid by that company are in effect paid by me as one of the owners.  The fact that the company wrote that check instead of me on my tax return is irrelevant. 

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

You make some fair and good points but somehow many companies and individuals pay little or no tax due to tax shelters, dodgy deductions  where the related income from an associated business is declared in low tax countries, and there are a range of ways to lower income through entities such as family trusts. So entities do pay tax on declared net income but they use tax strategies to reduce the  income on which they pay tax. You probably saw how some of the most famous billionaires pay little or no tax while their net worth soars. 

On the dividend issue Australia has higher taxes but we do have imputation credits so you get  credit for tax paid by companies on dividends - I concur that that is fair.  One negative is that it is taken too far whereby if you have no tax to pay you get a refund similar to the tax credit which benefits wealthy retirees. It basically meant that the company paid tax and the shareholder got that tax back as a refund so no one paid tax. 

As I said too it's not just about tax. 

On 7/1/2021 at 12:15 PM, Thomas J said:

This shows me how little you actually have researched who pays taxes.  In the USA 47% of the people pay zero income tax.  The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all takes while the bottom 90% pay only 39%  And somehow that is not progressive? 

Now as to the statement that we all start out the same is idealistic and unrealistic.  The fact that people were born in the USA alone gives them a huge advantage over 95% of the world's population.   My parents were not Kennedy's Rockefellers, Gates, or Bezos.  Does that make me disadvantaged.  Sure but there is a huge difference between saying that some have a greater advantage versus my social situation makes it impossible for me to succeed.   As previously mentioned huge number of Asian immigrants come to the USA, many impoverished. they did not enjoy a US education, and many were not able to speak English when they arrived.  Yet, they flourish, they study, they work, they save, they start businesses.  That is personal initiative and they faced a much steeper climb than those born in the urban areas of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, or Detroit. 

How do people make it better. The same way they have for centuries.  They work hard, save, and pass the benefits on to their descendants in the hopes of paving a better life for them.  The majority of the immigrants who came to the USA were not wealthy.  They studied, they worked, they got jobs, they educated their children, pushed them to aspire to achieve more than they did, and hence the next generation had it better.  This idea that somehow government can ideally make everything equal is akin to taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it in the shallow end and expecting that will raise the level of the shallow end. 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4193565-what-take-to-be-in-top-1-percent-not-much-you-think

The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes

Google gave you that. Google shows there's different ways of looking at it. Your statistics may be correct but the reason the most wealthy pay the most taxes are because their income and  wealth is so much higher than those on a lower income. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% and that is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000. You could argue that's fair but it's not as progressive as your statistics indicate. Often the rich can lower their taxable income by tax breaks - especially on investments. So they pay tax on income  but that taxable  income is reduced by special rules for investors.  1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000. 

Your stories of rising from the bottom up to the top are admirable and it is good to work hard and smart to make your money. I can admire someone who achieves that while at the same time feel that people, who do more mundane work, should get enough pay to have a reasonable life. So many Americans are working poor who never get ahead of the game. Maybe they lack a bit of motivation, some might be a bit lazy, but I think someone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn a decent pay for their job. Not saying communism or socialism but just not the rich and powerful setting the agenda for everyone else.

Take the building industry in Thailand. Workers get terrible pay. Builder makes a fortune. In Australia workers get decent pay thanks to unions. Builder still makes decent money. So it's not just taxes but a range of factors that can just balance the power a bit without taking away the incentive to work hard and achieve success. 

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Legalise all drugs and make them freely available at normal cost+ pricing, then these 3 problems have probably gone.

 

Just being having an overdose on the Narcos series on Netflix.. I am a bit late to the party... fantastic show and it makes you think what you are saying .. think of all the taxes 

9 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

OK.  Sound of Music.  That's in colour, now.

I stand corrected.

So for you the high bar of music and movie culture, to which everything since pales in comparison, is a corny movie with kids singing about girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Are you sure you are a street cowboy. Not my cup of tea but each to their own.

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Ok, I'll try to make it as simple as possible for you...

• There are states of consciousness. 
• We operate at a state called "waking sleep (3)". Here the brain produces Beta waves.
• During deep meditation people are able to produce Theta and Delta waves.
• Theta and Beta are associated with the higher states of consciousness called Self-Transcendence (4) and Objective Consciousness (5).
• "God" is a collective term for what can be experienced during states 4 and 5. (well, not just that, but I promised to keep it simple).

Is there scientific evidence for states of consciousness. Of course.

Is there scientific evidence for brain waves. See above.
Is there empirically supported evidence that these states of consciousness produce radical changes in ones awareness of life and the universe? Ditto 

 

Conclusion:
Science goes as far as verifying the objective physiological changes during the different states of consciousness (record the brain wave patterns and changes in biochemistry)

Science CAN NOT verify the subjective changes that happen during those states, just like it can't make a video of your dream and what you feel during that dream. 
This is a limitation of science, not of the meditators! 


I hope this is clear enough for you. 
Looking forward to your reply.



 

 

 

I would just change the last bit to

Some feel that individual experiences indicate a supernatural or cosmic experience but science cannot sense these based on current technology. 

Science says that there is evidence of benefits of meditation and of different states of the brain that may affect state of consciousness but not of an experience outside the persons physical body. Science considers it is not unreasonable that those experiencing supernatural or cosmic experiences might come back with new insights on how the world works or some evidence that should be testable. 

22 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So, the next question would be "Why would anyone want to reach state 4 and 5?". Why not just be content with the life we're used to live at state 3 (the Waking Sleep)? 

 

In the same way we judge our dreams at state 2 to be less real compared to when we awaken from sleep, waking up to state 4 brings the realization that that state is more real than the preceding one. It isn't a coincidence that the root of the word Buddha means "to awaken"...awaken from the illusion that state 3 is all there is.
This is where we have a choice or free will; take the red pill and be willing to learn an unsettling or life-changing truth, or take the blue pill and remain content in the status quo, and well....ignorance.

 

The answer is quite simple in my opinion. Striving for state 4 and 5 is an evolutionary imperative. It's the mystery that will forever attract mankind like moths to a flame. It's what makes us complete. 

 

And while we're on the topic of evolution...I think it's safe to say that we, as a species, are not at the pinnacle of our evolution. What if the next big step for humankind is the development of a new sense of perception? This sense is already latent in each one of us, but what if, with every new generation born, this sense gets more acute and gradually enables us to tap into state 4 and 5 at will? What is now attained by a small group of people and usually through years of practice, may one day be as commonplace as the ability read.
Sure, it sounds like a science fiction story, but I kind of believe that it's not so far from the truth after all.
What do you think?

Interesting discussion but I am going to give what might sound like a lazy answer. For a time I was interested in Krisnamurti who describes the type of thing you talk about. 

A seemingly opposite but strong influence was The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand which, though a bit of a right wing economics bible and a bit nasty and repulsive in some ways, provided a counterpoint to my left leaning ways and it was about the thrill of being aware and reliant on yourself. 

For what it's worth  my instincts told me to  stop trying in relation to such issues. It's in a sense to admit  to being free and selfish, and to be careful but to believe in yourself such that being good is not contradictory to being selfish. The act of trying or striving is taking you away from yourself. If there is something out there I will discover it as much by living my normal life as by meditating. There could be nothing. 

 That doesn't contradict a lot of what you have said but I just note that from the point of the option of either just letting yourself be or in a sense striving to go up steps.

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Media lies

Republicans and Fox News and some of the new right wing ones. Correct. We are talking about the lie of the extent of support for say 'Defund the Police' or shutting down some free speech on University campuses.

There is the additional lie of having no shades of grey in relation to say linking say Black Lives Matter protesters and other more strident or violent protesters. 

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Who is the right? People are individuals.

 

 

Republicans are the right. Yes they are people too and they lie and exaggerate about the extent of support by Democrats for a range of far left causes. 

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

This recent podcast offers an interesting model of how to view the "woke" segment of the American public as well as other major factions.

 

 

Poor Al Franken. Trump was right  - he shouldn't have jumped. He did very little wrong if it was wrong at all. 

45 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

UK never had a decent labor party. Tony Blair what a joke. UK politics is <deleted> but woke comes from US colleges.

Students do get a bit over the top when they are young. The old saying 'A young right winger has no heart' 'An old left winger has no brains' or something like that. Yes some students have gone over the top but they are young. The big lie is when the right attributes those characteristics to democrats as a whole. 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When ABBA toured Australia they had massive crowds lining the streets from the airport to welcome them. Do you think anyone would wait on the pavement to see Kanye, JayZ, or Beyonce drive by?

I was there in 77. I had liked Abba earlier but my family thought I still did so bought me an Abba bag and tickets. Not bad. Still got the Abba red vinyl bag. As an 11 year old in Australia I had no idea punk was happening when it was actually happening. You are a bit hard on punk. I am more likely now to listen to The Stranglers or new wave stuff than Abba or their ilk. Give it another listen you might be surprised how good and fun some of it is.

36 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

but it's not 1800 anymore. The immigrants today are coming into well established cities and inserting themselves into communities and competing for jobs, housing etc... If they were coming and settling open areas and building new cities that would be another matter all together.

 

Ultimately it doesn't matter because the damage has been done and US is now in a state of perpetual conflict and strife. There's no happy ending for the people in the US and part of the reason I'm happy to stay in Thailand.

I am not saying therefore open the gates to central Americans or others in a free for all. I sometimes feel Democrats are too soft and almost sentimental on immigration. Control it for the benefit of the country and use it for humanitarian reasons where appropriate. 

Some though seem to feel that one ethnic group, that happened to have most of the power in the United States over the years, represent the real America. A country totally based on immigration. Maybe the point is a bit obvious. 

44 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

I don't want Thailand overrun by Europeans because I understand this will pollute Thai culture and lead to conflict. Likewise, when in America I don't like being overrun by Latin Americans because this will pollute the culture and cause conflict.

 

Perfectly coherent position to take and I bet 95% of Thais would agree with me.

I know from whence you are coming and I think it is interesting how countries like Japan and maybe Thailand can want to keep a certain type of country without being called racists whereas other countries can't do the same. I don't necessarily concur with many anti immigration arguments but I don't think it makes someone a racist to discuss it. 

I think it's a hard argument for the United States though given it is a country based on immigration and native Americans.   Huge chunks  had been owned by Mexico, France, Spain, Russia,  and immigration, be it Germans or Chinese or latin Americans, go back to the start. Then there's African slaves. So I think it's hard to say that you like a particular racial side of America and say that's necessarily the real America.  

That's not to say immigration shouldn't be strictly controlled but just that many latinos and others have just as strong and sometimes stronger historical links  to the  country and continent than whatever people you think is the real America. 

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Hmmmm...isn't g-word kinda-sorta the topic here based on the OP title? Doubtful this is what Ivor (OP) originally had in mind, but surely he'd love it just to further extend his longest-thread-ever record. Perhaps he'll chime in, though wouldn't count on it. He's nearly as absent and undetectable as every single god-concept ever proposed throughout history! ????

I think if you are talking about god the most fruitful discussion is to hear from those who feel a sense of god to talk about how they experience it.

The first step could be to understand the experience of some sort of objective consciousness i.e. an experience beyond the known senses.

The next step might be to see if this necessarily means a god is at play or whether there is just some spiritual dimension that requires no god.

It beats just saying 'You can't prove your god so there'. Not saying that is your argument. I read some back pages the other day and I saw that not much I have said had not been said three times before so new approaches are helpful. Probably we'll all remain in our believe and not believe camps but something to do. 

48 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Do you trust the "holy books" just when they fit with your narrative ?

Just asking ????

But perhaps you were around when Jesus was preaching and you listened directly to him????

It's interesting - I searched Mr Google and many say as you say he did not believe in hell. But they often don't mention the verses above. Of those that do some interpret it as hell..some don't.

One thing that showed up is that hell seemed to often be a later construct. So I guess you just have to ... decide for yourself.

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Life can be very funny sometimes, but today i saw an atheist quoting the bible to prove her point. ????

I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

I found it interesting. Shows that Jesus was on the fear train as well. Do as I say or eternal damnation. OK Jesus. 

1 hour ago, Leaver said:

 

A holiday in Thailand was Thailand's best advertisement as a potential retirement destination for tourists.

 

You could see pre covid the decline in western tourists here, for a multitude of reasons that have already been discussed.

 

The numbers of retiring expats to Thailand will also decline in the future, which will have a significant impact on the property market in many of the tourist areas, not to mention, they keep building.  

 

Then, you have the unstable government to consider.  

 

There are many expats trapped here now, due to having money tied up in a property or business, or both, also emotional ties.  

 

Covid aside, I could leave tomorrow with no financial loss, and in recent times, many expats have said to me they envy my position, as they are no longer so happy here.  

I am interested why you feel that way. I am looking to retire in Thailand in a few years.

To be honest I can't see that Thai governments have been a bastion of democracy for some time so it's a bit same same. I would have thought less tourists in some ways make it more fun for expats. 

I can understand if someone has a business in Thailand affected by covid but that's a world wide thing. I thought most retirees would be living off income from overseas so it would generally be OK.

Would they want to go back home or somewhere else. I haven't heard that property prices have dropped a lot so they could sell up. Maybe units in some locations are not doing so good. I am wondering what makes the expats not happy other than the covid factor which hopefully will be short term from here.  

I think there are probably a lot of people who, for over a year, have been waiting and watching Thailand youtube videos and reading this and some are talking  to their girlfriends by Line and will be keen to go to Thailand. Lot of Australians. Think of the Chinese and Indians. Maybe being there you forget how good it can be.. or maybe I forget it's not that special and too hot. 

I think flake is a lovely fish to be battered. Blue Grenadier or Hoki  is good too - much better in batter than not and cheap in Australia and freshly caught off the coast of New Zealand.  Basa is really cheap in Australia but you just worry about those Vietnamese fish farms. You are what you eat. 

You have to be careful with names. Australian Barramundi - sensational. Taiwanese Barramundi - shocker. 

Bet ya it ain't true

Sometimes on Thaivisa they make fun of Australians for eating vegemite - it is upsetting but I soldier on. 

They're just having a laugh. If anything those type of stories are a bit cliched - the youtube channels get boring where they watch reactions to new foods, some old song they never heard, etc.

9 minutes ago, caughtintheact said:

When anyone gets healthcare that they do not pay for, then someone else is paying for it.  It is not free. If there were any way to provide free healthcare to all, and still pay those who provide everything needed for excellent healthcare enough to keep them in their professions, I'd sure like to know hw it would work.  Morality: How much morality is involved when government runs healthcare and has to ration it because of budget problems?  What is the morality in letting people die waiting for healthcare even if they have  money to pay but  are not allowed to pay for treatment?  How much morality is involved when corruption in government wastes even some of the funds that were supposed to be for healthcare?  How much morality is  involved in letting people die waiting for decades for government approval of life-saving medicines because government officials are afraid to be less than perfect and won't even let dying volunteers try the medicines at their own risk?  

I do not believe that there is anything that can be called government largesse, because the money going to government has to come from some place. No money originates in government, except when government gets the printing presses rolling, and when that happens it causes inflation, which should be called a tax and which harms the poor the most.  

The term largesse was used with a hint of cynicism for the reason you give - that all benefits have to be paid for. 
The system you describe sounds like an extreme  system where there is only govt healthcare and no private option. Not relevant to most big health care systems including Thailand. 

I think Australia has a reasonable if imperfect system whereby there is free healthcare with certain incentives for those on a middle to higher income to get cover. There are delays sometimes but it works fairly well. 

There is a lot to criticise Thaksin for but his universal healthcare is not one of them in my opinion. Impressive in a country with low rates of taxation. You have money then you can still get private cover. 

I concur with aspects of what you say but I just think healthcare is different. Would you let those who can't afford cover die? Morality and fairness can and should play a role in society. You might say 'who's morality' so as not to have to deal with the issue. It might be worth a percentage or three extra tax to fund a decent healthcare so the working poor, disabled and others can get care. Yes some people who should have saved but ride the system get it too. 

As an aside I think government's can do some things well. They privatised trains, power, and other utilities in Australia and it was supposed to lead to huge efficiencies but, in my opinion, it just made certain people get rich and fees go up..e.g. what we call gold plating the power system. 

Govt and private enterprise can each do what they do well.