Preparedness for when

GreyQueen

jk0 wrote: »

This is an interesting comment I just saw on Zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-15/are-you-ready-coming-debt-revolution#comment-6099806

Are American citizens really defined as corporations, or is it an old wives tale?

Dunno. But American corporations have long had legal personhood. Apparently, you have no obligation to file a tax return in the US, but once you have done so, you are obliged to pay taxes. Most people over there don't know that and the IRS doesn't advertise it.

I used to wonder why nation states fretted about falling population levels. Since many of us are overcrowded, and things like accomodation are expensive because of it, surely fewer people would mean more elbow-room and resources? Less pollution? More of the good and less of the bad?

Then I adopted the term 'tax donkey' from a ZH article and came to the understanding that the elites need the maximum amount of tax donkeys to fund their activities and thus declining popuations are a matter of grave concern to TPTB.

FairyPrincessk

Afraid the point about not being required to file an income tax return and not being required to pay taxes until you do in the U.S. is a myth. It is a very popular myth among tax protesters, but nonetheless a myth. The Internal Revenue Code, U.S.C. 26 Sections 1 and 1 a set this out pretty clearly. Sections 6151 and 6012 cover when you're required to file a return--which is if you're earning enough money from any and all income sources to meet the taxable threshold.

What is true is that if you earn below the taxable income threshold you're not required to file a return, although there are often reasons to do so anyway as it is often used to establish your income level so may be used to determine things like student loan amounts etc.

I'll creep back into hiding now.

nuatha

FairyPrincessk wrote: »

I'll creep back into hiding now.

Thank you for a useful explanation.
I remember friends who were US citizens working in the UK also paying US taxes and that that system seemed stupidly complicated.

No need to disappear into back into hiding, its generally friendly around here - as is most if not all of the OS board.

[Deleted User]

Hiya FPK stay and play, don't leave us!!!

FairyPrincessk

Don't worry, I tend to read along on the SHTF thread and I'll pop in next time I have anything to share. I'll probably be trying to pop into the M&M thread more after my exam.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

Dunno. But American corporations have long had legal personhood. Apparently, you have no obligation to file a tax return in the US, but once you have done so, you are obliged to pay taxes. Most people over there don't know that and the IRS doesn't advertise it.

I used to wonder why nation states fretted about falling population levels. Since many of us are overcrowded, and things like accomodation are expensive because of it, surely fewer people would mean more elbow-room and resources? Less pollution? More of the good and less of the bad?

Then I adopted the term 'tax donkey' from a ZH article and came to the understanding that the elites need the maximum amount of tax donkeys to fund their activities and thus declining popuations are a matter of grave concern to TPTB.

The main reason that governments are concerned about falling populations is that the debt burden of public debts makes it unsustainable. Without a number of people paying taxes they cannot maintain their pension systems. Countries like Latvia which has lost a third of its population through emigration since the financial crisis, effectively exported all their unemployment but what it also means is that those remaining will have to face an ever higher tax burden to maintain pensions. So the tax donkeys will be required to work longer to maintain the system.

Also countries with falling populations are unable to maintain adequate defences and so get eaten up by a neighbour.

The term tax donkey really applies to the average working person. They are taxed by PAYE and so do not have the scope to fiddle their taxes like the executives and rich. Who probably pay a lower percentage of taxes than they should. Remember when a certain comedian was paying only 1% tax on £3 Million income and he thought it was okay?

It also applies to small businesses who are less able to evade taxes through shell corporations overseas where they can transfer fees and royalties. Where the majority of tax avoided is by big multinationals and their advisors.

thriftwizard

The main reason that governments are concerned about falling populations is that the debt burden of public debts makes it unsustainable. Without a number of people paying taxes they cannot maintain their pension systems.

Soooo - we have to keep on importing people, ad infinitum, because otherwise our economy will grind to a halt & all our pensioners starve? Either that, or keep on moving the pension qualifying age upwards, so that less & less people ever get there? That explains quite a lot...

(Genuine interest, not sarcasm, btw...)

GreyQueen

thriftwizard wrote: »

Soooo - we have to keep on importing people, ad infinitum, because otherwise our economy will grind to a halt & all our pensioners starve? Either that, or keep on moving the pension qualifying age upwards, so that less & less people ever get there? That explains quite a lot...

(Genuine interest, not sarcasm, btw...)

I've had my pension age moved up 7 years already and expect to see it moved up again; very much doubt that state pensions will be payable to those under 70 before long (5-10 years being my estimation).

The free movement of labour is one of the basic tenets of economics, but people may move, and then move again, so you could have a situation developing where countries bid for each other's population, and then what do you do if they want to leave again later? Stop them? Offer them enticements to stay? And what would be better; importing people, or putting people already here to work? I have a lot of neighbours on the dole..............:(

We live in very interesting times indeed.

+++++++++++++

Been gardening like a good 'un, weeding very diligently. A rumour has reached me that there may be late frosts next week, so have left the weeds which are sheltering the spuds in place, for another couple of weeks, in hopes that any frost would settle on them, not the spud leaves themselves. It's a theory, anyway, we'll have to see how it goes.

Oh, and TVL are on my case again; they carded me yesterday and promised to return. I thought I was going to have a chance to torment them late this aft but it was only SG popping over for a chat. Drat and dammit, when will I get my very own enforcement officer (snigger) to play with.............?:rotfl:

nuatha

thriftwizard wrote: »

Soooo - we have to keep on importing people, ad infinitum, because otherwise our economy will grind to a halt & all our pensioners starve? Either that, or keep on moving the pension qualifying age upwards, so that less & less people ever get there? That explains quite a lot...

(Genuine interest, not sarcasm, btw...)

That's what we've been doing for a while now, immigrants and migrants make a net contribution to our economy (despite the reports in certain of our newspapers).
Unfortunately I doubt that higher numbers would have prevented the rises in pensionable age.

GreyQueen wrote: »

I've had my pension age moved up 7 years already and expect to see it moved up again; very much doubt that state pensions will be payable to those under 70 before long (5-10 years being my estimation).

That is my expectation - legislation brought forward this parliament as part of the welfare cuts/austerity measures to raise the retirement age to 70 with a further escalator to 75 phased in over the following 10 years.

The free movement of labour is one of the basic tenets of economics, but people may move, and then move again, so you could have a situation developing where countries bid for each other's population, and then what do you do if they want to leave again later? Stop them? Offer them enticements to stay? And what would be better; importing people, or putting people already here to work? I have a lot of neighbours on the dole..............:(

We live in very interesting times indeed.

I can see a system arising where you pay some taxes and some sort of insurance to your "parent" country no matter where you work (or are earning, for remote workers) in order to maintain some right to a pension or at least the right to retire in the "parent" country. Parent country possibly being linked to nationality, but may become another commodity.

The latest figures I can find show 1.86 million unemployed with with just under 800K claiming JSA. The employment rate is 73%, a 33% increase in working numbers would certainly be a major boost to the economy.

Frugalsod

GreyQueen wrote: »

I've had my pension age moved up 7 years already and expect to see it moved up again; very much doubt that state pensions will be payable to those under 70 before long (5-10 years being my estimation).

The free movement of labour is one of the basic tenets of economics, but people may move, and then move again, so you could have a situation developing where countries bid for each other's population, and then what do you do if they want to leave again later? Stop them? Offer them enticements to stay? And what would be better; importing people, or putting people already here to work? I have a lot of neighbours on the dole..............:(

We live in very interesting times indeed.

I suspect that even if we were able to get rid of all the immigrants over night that things would not improve. Many immigrants do jobs that locals would not do and could not afford to do without lots of benefit top ups. Many of them are doing jobs on farms or factories and we have brought up a generation to think that anything less than an office job with a degree is beneath us. Employers have spectacularly failed to train a work force that they have claimed that they are short off, relying on foreign trained workers from Eastern Europe to do jobs that they will not train anyone for. They are all free riders trying to get the trained work force but without paying for it. The same applies to the government for the last 30 years who have gradually passed the risk and burden of training on to the individual who is probably the least equipped to know what trades to study for.

Maybe what we need is a tax on employers that pays for training and higher education? Need a degree for that job then pay a tax based on needing a degree, use the funds to give free tuition to students and maintenance grants as well. Lets see how many jobs really need a degree level of education.