Norway offers free university/college education to anyone from any nation regardless of citizenship. Their education is ranked as much much better than ours.
Norway gave more than 500% more of it's GDP to foreign aid than the USA.
Want to know how to restore America? It starts by being the best in things like this, the best educators, the most welcoming nation, the most helpful nation.
Did the people of Norway give more in charitable aid to other countries than the people of the United States?
According to the Charity Aids Foundation the United States ranks first in its index and Norway does not appear on the list, at all. The United States gives hundreds of billions of dollars to all charities and no other country comes close. Private charitable giving to foreign aid organizations by Americans far out strips United States government, and therefore politically motivated, foreign aid spending
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c … PmmInzF8uA
http://charity.org/sites/default/files/ … 0FINAL.pdf
http://www.crossborderdirectory.org/whi … arity.html
Norwegians give significantly more to charity individually too also I would point out that the study you cite has lot of what I would classify as "soft statistics" like "helped a stranger" (which can mean anything) and does not account for non humanitarian charity i.e. if you donate money to the church you use to repair it I am not personally going to classify that as charity.
Further complicating private charity is the issue that charity can be used as a tax break in the US and not in Norway. However that study does include that Norwegians are less likely to make private donations by a ratio of 60% in the US to 44% in Norway, though it does not give the quantities respectively.
Norway has higher taxes in return for higher services. This is not the case in the US.
Yes, but are all the courses taught in Norwegian? If so I think that might significantly reduce the number of international students able to take advantage of the offer. Very smart move on Norway's part though. Their PR man should get a bonus.
It is apparent that there are several unanswered questions, as usual.
Nope, courses are offered in a variety of languages, most in English actually.
Edit: courses are offered in Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, English and German. Smaller numbers of courses are offered in Chinese, Japanese, French and Spanish.
Most Norwegians speak English, Norwegian and one or two other languages.
So no courses in Urdu, Swahili, Tagalog or Uto-Aztecan?
Thank God some one is reaching out to all those indigent English, French, Swedish, German, Japanese and Chinese students whose lives are full of 3rd world hardships like automobiles, clean water, reliable medical care and plentiful food - and that worst of all possible 3rd world plagues, literacy. We wouldn't want to see the Norwegians waste their generosity on Mexticos. No, they lure students from developed countries to bolster their own flagging population and add genuine economic assets. Perhaps we could trade with them. Our illegal immigrants, who are illiterate in their own native languages, for their literate and capable imported future professionals. It all sounds pretty cynical to me, and I know cynicism when I see it.
On the contrary not only are there literally billions of poor people who speak Chinese and Spanish but they also offer courses to foreigners to learn those languages that they do teach in college I suppose because of the practicality of finding professors in Norway for every single language around.
Pretty typical bad assumption.
I am certain the man who picks your coffee beans, by hand, has his plane ticket in hand as we speak. Perhaps he can read it, though unlikely. The billions of poor you wish will learn Norwegian live in the squalor and privation of miserable nations whose primary goal is to guarantee ignorance in the general population, a good way to maintain control. The great Norwegian free education does the coffee picker little good, it does the son of the dictator wonders.
On the contrary the poor masses across Latin America, China etc. often end up immigrating, I know because I was born an orphan in Argentina and left under a dictatorship. The poor are usually the people who emigrate because they have the least keeping them where they are. They save up for a plane ticket or like I did get a job on a cargo ship etc.
"Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me" etc.
Cool. Sounds like they are investing in the future.
I think your comparison is invalid on so many levels it is just too much work to explain why in a forum response.
By all indicators Norway is a great success, but that success appears to be due to a combination of government control - socialism, and capitalism.
Knowing the apparent feelings of most Americans concerning anything related to socialistic mandates, your point will probably lead most opposing opinions to criticize Norway. Which I think would be a doomed effort because Norway's citizens chose their lot, and it has worked for them.
Apples and oranges on so many levels...;
5 million citizens, (+/-) vs. 320 million, (+/-)
147,000 sq. miles land area, (+/-) vs. almost 4 million sq. miles
A government life-support vs. a personal responsibility mentality
Sort of like asking why a freight-hauling tractor trailer rig can't get the same gas mileage and pollution output as a pharmacy's prescription-delivering Pious or SmartCar.
In my reading, (prompted by your post), Norway seems like a great place to live - if that is your cup of tea. Which leaves me pondering the question of why Norway isn't the most desired country to immigrate to? And, Why is the U.S. such an immigration magnet?
Talking about any nations psyche like it's some sort of edifice rooted in stone seems fundamentally flawed, people and cultures change and one of the ways they change (and should change) is by observing and learning from other models, applying what works and discarding what does not.
Relative size seems a pretty pointless difference to me, macro economic theory does not change in a significant way for lager or smaller countries i.e. a conservative government in a small country will implement the same measures as a conservative government in a large one and there is certainly no correlation between being small and being successful as a nation.
As for immigration: for the same reason Coke is the most popular bought drink on planet earth, brand recognition, most people from third world nations don't have spreadsheets of information in front of them they just saw some 80s Hollywood films and decided that was the place to be.
You bring up a good point. The capitalism of the US provides Coke, McD hamburgers, Fords and Chevy's, Boeing planes, and of course plain old food to the rest of the world in such quantities that the names are known virtually everywhere. People worldwide want what capitalism is producing.
What products does the socialism of Norway crank out such that it is instantly recognized world wide? Off hand, I don't think I've ever seen an import from Norway, let alone recognizable brand names is there economy so stifled with taxes that it can never grow much beyond their own borders?
Coke? Big Macs? Ford's and Chevy's? You hold these up as great contributions to humanity, yet the legacy of these products speaks for itself. Death,Death,Death, and more Death! The health hazards of soft drinks and fast food is well documented. It is also understood that in the United States alone over 40,000 people die each year in traffic fatalities. Thousand more suffer permanent disability. Many of those killed,dismembered, and disabled are children who did not have a choice. Henry Ford was certainly no hero, and his body count has far surpassed that of Adolf Hitler . But to the materialist who is in love with capitalism, anything that makes a dollar is worth any amount of human sacrifice. Oh say can you see?
To your point of a rooted psyche, I agree, but that was not my observation. American attitudes and culture have changed, but it has been changes that are guided by our values. We obviously have different values than Norwegians. (I hope you will spare me the lecture on what values are important - to you)
Also, my points relative to size and population, and especially our perspective of values, had nothing to do with macro economics, but everything to do with reality. So I don't think they were anywhere near pointless.
Providing for or persuading a significant portion of 5 million* is a lot different than doing the same for a similar percentage of 320 million.
*I completely disagree with your small vs. large conservative government example. It seems a simple look at today's world illustrates that a conservative effort that succeeds in one small country does not mean the same effort will/has succeeded in larger countries.
Infrastructure for one area will most certainly be different, (in both cost and structure), from the infrastructure of an area approximately 27 times larger.
And lastly, to your immigration explanation... Are you really saying it is due to those masses of ill-informed and illiterate folks again? Are you implying that if we all knew what you knew we would be scrambling to immigrate to, or at least try to emulate - Norway?
The world is a Baskin-Robbins... the universal solution.
Why are we getting shown up so much? Because we don't care! Warrior Nation (US) is going about doing it's business regardless of others opinions. We invade other countries with a courtesy appearance of UN forces and tell others a story to validate our aggression. We give billions to other friendly countries that turn around and stab us in the back. We also ignore genocide in countries that have no value to us in the marketplace. Why does this happen you may ask? Because when we have a chance to change it we are cowards. With a 14% to 16% approval rating of Congress we re-elected 93% of the criminals to another term. Either we are cowards or greedy self centered idiots as we sell out the country.
The BEST method to restore America to her former greatness is to dismantle the current welfare state as it is. Much of our taxes are supporting those on generational welfare in which the majority of those are able bodied. Welfare should be strictly constructed to be for the severely mentally & physically disabled who are not able to work. Welfare benefits should include those who TEMPORARILY cannot work with the indication that they will find future employment. Welfare was not meant to be generational. If welfare was dismantled from 70%-85%, America would flourish again.
All of my life I have heard people speak of restoring America to her former greatness. Since .you brought it up, I wonder if you could enlighten the world as to when, and during what era did this greatness exist. Perhaps during the era of Jim Crow? Or maybe when Japanese Americans were being herded into concentration camps here in America, or when the Indigenous were being placed on reservations as a matter of ethnic cleansing, or when blacks and whites were being lynched with impunity throughout the north and south, or the 500 years that women and children were forced to suffer sexual abuse and exploitation with little remedy under the law, or the Great Depression and all of the suffering and indignity that it wrought. Please tell us when.
Good move? Piss off the peasants. You think that freedom is denying those oppressed by the system will just wake up and do better. What fantasy land do you live in? The problem is the poor is what you offer? Your solution can only deepen the divide and worsen the situation. The oligarchy is the problem and that is at the top. They began the changes you now see and continue to feed you this garbage.
The answer then is to expand the welfare system? To continually supporting people in the forlorn hope that they will wake one day and decide that they, not their neighbor, should be providing their support structure? That they will voluntarily work for their maintenance when it is free for the taking?
Who said anything about expanding it? Perhaps if we would trade some of those corporate induced policies for our jobs and income back, much of welfare would not be neccesary. But I guess the corporations have not made enough money at our expense to trickle some of that money back down to the peasants.
Or we have not made enough money at corporate expense (they do write the check, after all) to expect any more than we already get? Which corporate policies would you trade for our jobs and income returning?
You don't seem to want to cut the welfare system; do you then think it is about right, with half the population using it?
You really have no idea how corporate America has changed the country with its meddling in the socio economic balance. NAFTA and now the TPP is now putting the nail in the coffin of stiffeling upward mobility for many young and veteran employment opportunities. The answer is higher and higher education for fewer and fewer jobs. Even lesser jobs are requiring massive education debt that cuts the lower class off at the knees. So pick on these people is your answer while corporate America runs the labor force out of jobs and broke. Why not a corporation has no investment in the country? Profits and greed at any price is their mantra.
I would have to say that corporations ARE the economy in the US, with a little thrown in for Mom and Pop stores. So yes, I think they have a major impact on that balance. Perhaps less than the politicians do, perhaps not, but still a major impact.
But you didn't answer the question: which corporate policies would you trade for income and jobs? And along with that, are you (and the country) willing to pay higher prices as a result?
Small business is the economy. Corporations hire overseas labor to the exclusion of domestic labor. You ask which corporate policies I would trade for jobs and income? It is very simple close off corporate lobbying Congress to sign treaties robbing America of jobs. 41% of the labor force has full time employment. How can you make ends meet when you have sub standard employment. I would also raise the tax rates of Corporations choosing to harbor over three trillion dollars off shore over Corporations who hire domestic labor. It is very simple yet greed is in the way.
I see. As none of those are corporate policies it's no wonder I didn't quite understand what you are driving at.
Better, I think, that you should work on the politicians rather than the corporations. But you tend to use grandiose and loaded terminology; can you, for instance, define "sub standard employment" in such a manner that it does not reflect your personal opinion but rather factual data?
Ridiculous. Corporate money is the deciding element of the political perversion that runs this country. How else could a business who wishes to not contribute to the country they lobby for more consideration. Not all corporations are involved but those that are involved are mostly corporations. If you wish to delude yourself with the conservative tact in demonizing the weakest in our society to affect the fleecing of this country then live in that farce. Grandiose or not the message remains the same greed runs this country.
And there I thought the people, electing representatives, were the deciding element.
But from your post, you would prohibit the hiring of any non-citizen. You would prohibit any corporation from owning anything outside the US, and presumably any individual from owning stock in a foreign corporation (there goes my "international" stock fund). You would prohibit importation of anything made outside our borders.
Do you think other countries might have something to say about such policies? Maybe something economic in nature?
I will, however, agree that greed runs this country. From the CEO to the poorest consumer, greed is the driving force in our economy. Greed and power, anyway; to some power is far more important.
"And there I thought the people, electing representatives, were the deciding element."
Hillary Clinton got elected to Congress from a district she never lived in prior to the election. George Bush got elected to the presidency through the decision of the Supreme Court. There are countless instances of tampering with the vote and I can't for the life of me believe you are that naïve.
It is not black and white issue regarding Corporate trade reform except that if you do business within the country you pay the sales or and income taxes to do so. The corporations through their donations to Congress have reversed the role to mean no taxation with representation. They currently have it both ways leaving the rest of us paying their share. Depending on what source you wish to believe there is approximately 1 to 3 trillion dollars in untaxed assets of American or operating in America Corporations holdings offshore. Why or how is the money sitting there if they want to invest in jobs in America? They would rather pull the ruse that they need additional tax breaks to increase the job market. The answer is that additional tax breaks will produce no new jobs and their greed will compel them to stash more of it offshore as usual.
It is your opinion then that American corporations operating overseas must pay taxes to both the US AND the other country?
To invest in jobs in the US there must be a return. Can they get one here, or are requirements from OSHA to EPA to wages too high to earn a profit?
What "additional" tax breaks are we discussing here? I hadn't caught that there were ANY...
You keep insinuating that corporations have a giant vault somewhere in the Caymans with all their cash money just sitting there. Can you provide evidence of that, or is just gross exaggeration?
If an American corporation operates overseas as a complete separate entity with no business dealings in the US of course they would not be required to pay taxes. Where is that true? If you are based here employing Americans and do business here you should be required to pay your share.
No one invests in jobs. Labor is a loser to the bottom line. Why create a loser when there is nothing to show for it? Sales creates jobs. Sales are generated by us the consumer. If there is little to no income the sales of many items will falter. Shipping the jobs overseas takes the money out of the domestic consumer who likewise doesn't buy and therefore corporations don't hire. The Corporations are content with proving they are making the most with the least investment and damn the worker as he does not matter in the short term. It is now showing up and the Corporations are squeezing the government to provide the money through tax breaks they will not pay the worker. OSHA and EPA taxes should be computed into the products cost just as are energy, packaging and any other production costs.
This is just a taste of what shenanigans Corporate America pull to hide their "Tax Free" money.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/co … usat_x.htm
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158441566 … er-to-hide
http://www.forbes.com/sites/conniegugli … tudy-says/
Corporations have gotten into the habit of buying business' with established product and customer loyalty. Not building from the ground up. If you want a quick course in it watch "Shark Tank". These people will only invest in an established idea with an established and truthful sales history. The sharks create nothing and only climb on board when somebody else does all the legwork.
But why should "your share (of taxes)" include income from plants/investments in another country, with foreign citizens doing the labor? Why should a part of such income be given to the US for use in THAT country? Outside of a little management based in the US there is nothing the US has done to produce that income.
Your links: the first is about money laundering and I don't get the connection to corporations operating overseas. The second is about private citizens, not corporations, having overseas bank accounts and again I don't get the connection (unless Obama's desire to confiscate wealth rather than tax income comes to fruition, which it likely will). The third discusses illegal bookkeeping entries and should already be prosecuted as being illegal. So where does taxing overseas corporate profits come into any of this?
What is wrong with buying a business? Are you saying now that every failing business should simply be closed down instead of sold, and the employees sent home?
I do agree, though, that US companies need to take more risk in their R&D - most companies require far too quick of a payback and refuse to take risks at all. Too afraid that their stock prices will fall, which actually has little to do with long term profitability; it is only "today" that matters, not next week in other words.
If you are based in the US with your corporate headquarters here doing business here you reside in a free market, security protected area paid for by who? You and I if they don't pay their share. You sound like the lawyers who try to make the same case. Merely because I live here, work here and raise my family here why should I pay any taxes argument is totally played. In the blurred borders of international commerce are we to believe that all responsibility should be forsaken because someone somewhere else bought one of my products. If that were the case why are there patents? Surely if you manufacture a product outside the US and sell it here how could that be related? Honestly! The little management here is under the protection and laws of the US and someone has been paying for that free trade gift.
The money laundering is the story. The corporate model of hiding profits overseas is after all a money laundering scheme. Explain the distinction between the two if they are different. I am not proposing that the wealth is confiscated from overseas accounts but that future profits should be taxed accordingly. Nobody confiscates a thing. We will never see the money squirreled away at this point but we should put a stop to it now. The third link was to show the intent of these corporate thieves that through lawyers and accountants they avoid paying massive taxes. They can't even estimate how many are getting away with it.
There is nothing wrong with buying a successful or failing business as long as you do it with your own money and not have the government bankroll your risk on a tax break.
Even with all these measures I propose we are doomed to a catastrophic failure of the bank system currently being undermined by the FED flooding humungous amounts of cash into a paper based market. When this comes to a head the government will try to bankroll the bailouts again but I fear the rest of the world will be wise to our charade and nail us for it. Massive inflation will evolve and finally wipe out our middle class.
What security would that be, and who/what does it protect? The Mexican auto parts plant? The Mexicans that work there? Who and what do you think is being protected by American security in the US?
The managers that live here pay taxes for the security they get from being inside the borders of the country; why should any more funds be taken from them than already is? YOU don't pay double, why should they?
It being as I don't understand "hiding profits", I can't tell you the difference. Can you explain a little better? You continually say that corporate profits, earned and spent in a different country, are being "hidden" - can you explain why the US has a claim on them (Security for US citizens and things doesn't make it)?
A bank loan can't buy a business then? But it can if it starts with a shovel in the ground? I don't quite follow that one. If you don't like your representative "bankrolling" the risk of buying a business with a tax break (can you give an example here?), get the law changed. You'll probably find far fewer people willing to take the risk, but all that will mean is fewer jobs. Not a problem, is it?
It is their choice to have a plant in Mexico now isn't it? Who said anything about protecting their foreign interests. I was talking about them doing business or occupying property under US jurisdiction. Just living here you are being protected by the biggest and most advanced military the world has ever seen.
"YOU don't pay double, why should they?"
I sure do pay double. I pay a self employment tax as well as property taxes on my business holdings. Why shouldn't they?
Hidden bank accounts and you perfectly know what I meant.
Tax breaks are given to companies to start up in areas where they are lobbied by the local government.
We seem to be discussing different things; no surprise as you take off on tangents rather than answering questions that you don't like.
I thought you were talking about US based corporations paying income taxes on profits made in different countries: you seem now to be claiming that US based corporations are taking profits from US operations and putting them in offshore bank accounts to rot and decrease in value while "forgetting" to claim it as income. That would, I believe, be illegal and should be prosecuted, but there is no reason I can see to change the law. I like it the way it is, illegal, although better enforcement might be indicated .
You pay double? As in paying the same entity twice for the same property value? Or the same entity (fed govt. maybe) two sets of income tax for the same dollar earned? Unless you have incorporated your business and become one of those evil corporations, I'd have to question that. Even the self-employment tax part of the FICA is only paid once, whether by the "employee" or "employer" (in this case you are both and thus pay both halves).
No I pay for being self employed as in a sole proprietorship. Then I pay the taxes due from revenues earned during the year. The amount changes with some years as low as $1,900 to around $3,500. This is just for the privilege of doing business.
How sad a nation we have become when we believe it is a privilege to do business and not an inalienable, Natural Right!
There are no natural rights in Warrior Nation. Greed is the mantra and politics the proof.
I would say we are not a Warrior Nation… Maybe the elected officials have become corrupt. They do not make a nation. We really need to hold them accountable. And vote them the heck out the first chance we get.
Vote in some good ones.
Ones that will not become corrupted.
If we have not lost the vote.
After well over 200 years isn't it obvious that greed cannot be "voted out" of a corrupt system? It's called "beating a dead horse".
After 10,000 years (or more), I'd have to say that greed cannot be "voted out" of ANY human system. Of course, without greed (wanting more than we have) we'd still be in the hunter-gatherer system.
I am sure Josef Mengele and his supporters would also agree that the ends justifies the means. Concerning your comment about "10,000 years": I suppose that if a wheel had been broken for 20,000 years, some of us would be content to ride upon the same broken wheel unto eternity.
Come now, it is more like 150,000 years, though almost all of that was pre-literate. It is precisely because we are so flawed that humans band together in societies with governments. It is a tightrope walk with no safety net.
Well, yes - I just wasn't sure about enough intelligence to BE greedy in a society that couldn't improve a spear point in 100,000 years.
But sure, that's why governments. Not so much why we band together - we are a herd animal, after all. We like each other's company too much to stay apart for long.
But it can have some controls that we have long overlooked. One thing would be term limits, another publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform. It kind of strangles the career politician and attracts those that want to make things better rather than enrich themselves. The US Congress is the greatest networking machine there is for a person to get rich.
Yes, controls are a great idea. But who will implement these controls? And when? Every politician and every president promises a new day, but tomorrow already looks like the day before. Looking to government for a solution is like asking the Fox to grow a conscience as he's waiting outside the hen house.
I would absolutely love to see term limits and get the career politicians out of office. We don't need those people running the country, we need the man in the street. Who almost certainly knows more about what the country needs and how to get it than the politician who has spent his life learning how to get re-elected and make back room deals.
Publicly funded election campaigns I'm not so sure about. The possibility (probability? surety?) of massive abuse is enormous.
I have talked with many conservatives and liberals and a lot of independents and have found an overwhelming consensus for those three things. Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform but it will have to come from us. The Congress is happy for it to remain the same.
I've posted it before (several times as I find it an egregious misuse of power), but Idaho citizens did just that with their state legislature. Term limits were instituted with a vote at general election time. They lasted until the legislature re-convened in January, whereupon our vaunted leaders promptly canceled out the law the people put into effect - easy enough as it was not a constitutional amendment, just a law they could do with as they wished.
Needless to say, I haven't voted for a single incumbent in that body since. If our politicians can't accept orders from their boss (the people) they don't belong there.
But we have lost the vote. Oh yeah we get to go through the motions but the candidates that are offered are vetted by their parties to keep everything copacetic. Term limits is the only thing we can do to change anything and take the money out of it with publicly financed campaigns. If you have ever lived overseas for any period of time there is a whole different take on us. Warrior Nation is very apropos when describing our neighbors opinion of us.
Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that you have no idea what "Natural Rights" means.
Here's a good one. Please educate me as to what you think it means.
Precisely. When the greed of this country is involved in any rights as you outlined, they are trumped. I guess you have a hard time determining which they are if you put the blinders on and beat your chest about the Declaration of Independence and if you look at my icon is a copy of the Bill of Rights but the blending of politics with greed has all but destroyed your rights and mine. Put on a fight with the IRS and see where you get with you inalienable rights and your property. Or take on the Supreme Court with an issue on your liberty that doesn't lean their way. Or maybe you can set up a battle with the President about how you feel about Syria and see where that takes you as a soldier and your life's worth. No my friend there is a blurry line between your rights and money.
Interesting. And what does the bill say it is for, outside of the business license that all business pay?
I didn't see anything about paying the same income tax twice to the same govt. entity, though - something all corporation owners do. Once as a "corporate" income tax and again (on the same income) as the income is transferred to that owner (called "dividends", although it is the same dollar bill that has already been taxed once by that govt.).
I don't know what bill you are referring too as it is an assessed value based on the computation. In addition to the self employment tax I also pay taxes on net profit.
The bill you paid. Whether calculated by you or someone else, you paid the bill. Still don't get the "self employment" tax, unless you refer to the business paid half of FICA.
You pay federal income tax on the income your business generates. I get that - I do the same with income my HP "business" gets me.
But the corporation owners pay it twice - once via a bill sent to the corporation (via that tax code) and again when the remaining amount is turned over to them (via dividends). The owners thus pay federal income tax twice on each dollar their investment earns, while you and I pay it once. Seem fair? Not to me...
Are you self employed? If so you pay as part of your taxes due a tax for that.
The corporation should pay one tax. Taxes on their net profits. Whether it is earned here or elsewhere it makes no difference. You wish to separate the two by a border. If the business is based and operates outside the country then they have no US taxes due. But if they want to sell product here then the tax is due.
Yes - I report the income from HP as self-employment. But I don't remember any "self employment" tax outside of double FICA on that portion. There is an income tax due to that income, but it is lumped into all the other taxes as well.
So corporations must pay a tax to the country where their headquarters is as well as income tax to wherever the product is sold. What about the location where the product is made? Do they owe taxes to that country as well? What about the employee nationality - does that matter? If the product contains parts made in another country should the company selling the finished product pay taxes to that country?
How do you ethically justify taxing a company multiple times from multiple jurisdictions on the same dollar earned? And how many countries do you think they can pay before that single dollar is gone? 2? 3? maybe even 4?
But you didn't address the US taxing a dollar twice when earned by a US citizen owning a part of a US corporation. How does that work from an ethical standpoint?
Nobody is getting taxed twice. If you or a corporation earn a buck tied to this country you pay taxes on it. By being tied I mean if a significant amount of your business is either done within these borders. That could mean manufacture, develop, or import. Right now the ones dodging the tax have tried fancy maneuverings by semi residence with the people living in this country and traveling outside to conduct business in a lesser taxed area. Not fair. If you live here and rely upon this economy to produce, purchase or protect (patent) your product then pay up.
Really? Corporation X earns $10, one for each of it's owners. It pays $4 in taxes, leaving $.60 for the owners, which it presents to them.
The owners then owe an additional $.30 on that very same dollar, leaving them $.30 left. Somehow that dollar went from a dollar to $.30, all in federal income taxes. It was taxed twice; once as income to the corporation and once as the same income to the owners of that corporation. Do you do that with your business? Pay a corporate income tax and pay it again when it hits your bank account?
(Don't pay any attention to the actual figures: I just grabbed easy to work with numbers. The idea behind it is sound, though).
As far as international earnings, you've just set up the liberals heaven: tax requirements so stringent that no company can ever afford any international dealings at all as they will instantly owe more than the price of the product, let alone profit from that product. That leaves the liberal with govt. having to produce anything (nearly everything) that has a connection to a different country. Heaven!
From the prior post that you declined to answer:
"So corporations must pay a tax to the country where their headquarters is as well as income tax to wherever the product is sold. What about the location where the product is made? Do they owe taxes to that country as well? What about the employee nationality - does that matter? If the product contains parts made in another country should the company selling the finished product pay taxes to that country?
How do you ethically justify taxing a company multiple times from multiple jurisdictions on the same dollar earned? And how many countries do you think they can pay before that single dollar is gone? 2? 3? maybe even 4?"
I don't know what corporations you belong to or know of getting taxed for the corporate taxes on their personal revenues. How do you even draw a check on that kind of ownership? A corporation is an entirely independent entity from the individuals. Individuals are paid through salaries, stock or bonuses. They do not get paid as sole proprietors who's draw is against the company equity that is figured through investment and depreciation. So the Corporation is taxed on net revenues minus expenses which includes salaries, bonuses or a more complicated stock schedule. I have answered your questions multiple times but you seem to have difficulty with understanding the tax structures.
The term is "dividends", where the corporations sends on it's net income to the owners of that corporation. Or at least what's left of it after paying taxes, whereupon the owner pays a tax again on that same income.
I just finished my own taxes this morning, and found the "self employment" tax you spoke of. It is, as I surmised, the same FICA that all citizens pay, less (for some reason) half of it.
Not understanding the tax structure - maybe because you don't read the posts. I have said over and over that it is the OWNERS paying the double tax, not employees.
"Really? Corporation X earns $10, one for each of it's owners. It pays $4 in taxes, leaving $.60 for the owners, which it presents to them.
The owners then owe an additional $.30 on that very same dollar, leaving them $.30 left. Somehow that dollar went from a dollar to $.30, all in federal income taxes. It was taxed twice; once as income to the corporation and once as the same income to the owners of that corporation. Do you do that with your business? Pay a corporate income tax and pay it again when it hits your bank account?"
....It is, as I surmised, the same FICA that all citizens pay, less (for some reason) half of it....
How do you figure all citizens? Not everyone is self employed. Whether it is under FICA as you say it is a separate tax then those who work for an employer. Surmise all you want it is an additional tax above all citizens.
I have said over and over that it is the OWNERS paying the double tax, not employ Corporation X earns $10, one for each of it's owners. It pays $4 in taxes, leaving $.60 for the owners, which it presents to them.
Oh really. Who owns General Motors? Who owns Xerox? Perhaps you could give me the name of the individual who owns Apple?
These corporations are owned by the stockholders and they receive dividends based on the returns from their investment or shares. That is an income and they are paid after costs. There is no one getting double taxed. The owners (as you say) are investors and it is part of their income as an interested party. None of them get a slice of the pie until it has met its expenses whether costs or taxes.
How does the owner pay himself? From the net profits of the corporation? No he gets paid dividends drawn against the corporate net profits as you wish that are then personally taxed. You seem to think there is ownership of a corporation by an individual. It is a shared ownership by in the case of a publicly traded entity the shareholders. If you are talking of an LLC. then in essence ypu are correct as it only relieves the owner of liabilities incurred by the LLC.
If you have one, look at the pay stub for your payroll check (or the one you write for your employee. It lists an amount for FICA tax (Social Security). That is what you are calling a "self employment" tax, but without an employer to deduct it from your paycheck you have to pay it April 15, that's all. Changing the name doesn't change what it is, after all - it is the SS "contribution" you make to enable drawing SS later in life. And if you look at your SS statement sent every few years, you will find the same numbers.
I'm surprised you don't know that - there are thousands of owners, all in a "partnership" to own and run the company. And the "dividends" are the income from the company (minus what is re-invested for growth, of course) - trying to make that income sound different by renaming it "dividend" rather than "profit" doesn't fly. It is still the profit from corporate operations (being split by all the owners) regardless of the terminology used, and it most certainly IS being taxed twice.
And if you aren't paying company + personal taxes, why do the owners of GM have to do so? Because there are lots of them? Because GM is bigger than your company? Because it is assumed that all partners in huge corporations are obviously rich and thus should pay more than their share?
But don't mistake legal for ethical right. I fully understand the law here, but I'm asking what ethical right you have to declare that I, a partial owner of GM, have to pay taxes on the profit of my company after GM has already paid income taxes on that same profit (let's stick with income taxes, not the thousands of other taxes), but you don't have to do it with the company YOU own.
I understand paying capital gains when I sell my ownership in GM for a personal profit, but why do I and my partners have to pay a second round of federal income taxes on the income that was already taxed and paid by the partnership?
You can say it anyway you like but the self employment tax is above any social security tax you pay. If you are paying that separately you will be in deep s##t when you retire. And you don't own any part of a corporation that you can prove beyond your investment. That is an estimated risk on your part that will leave pennies on the dollar if a bankruptcy happens. You are not involved in the substantial running and or decisions other than voting in board members if you are priveleged to do so. In essence it is like any other gambling you would like to engage in. They don't come and take your house in default. Not the same my man. Everything we buy work at or own have multiple taxes from the raw materials to the shelf where it sits. You can't have it both ways. Investment without any liabilities is what you are looking for in your description of corporate ownership.
And when/where do you pay SS taxes if not on line 12, section B of the Schedule C for the 1040 form? That's the line labeled "self employment tax" if you're unfamiliar with taxes in the US, and coincidentally the arithmetic producing it is exactly the same producing the SS taxes that the employed pay (in conjunction with their employer who pays half). In fact, if you will look at the chart from the SS administration showing rates over the years, you will even find that the SS taxes and what the self employed pay break down into the same OASDI and HI (SS old age and health insurance).
But if that's not enough, you are aware that if you do not pay into the SS program you will not draw from it, either? And yet, the self employed DO draw from it all the time...because they paid that "self employed" tax that so strangely matches the SS rates.
If GM is sold, I will receive compensation exactly equal to my share of the total number of shares of stock - how else do you define "ownership"? Yes, I help run GM by voting (with other owners) to hire someone to do the day-to-day decisions. That shows I don't own a part of it? I don't think so.
Who doesn't come and take my house? I don't understand that statement at all - the tax collector would if I don't pay my taxes, the bank if I don't pay them, but no one else. Certainly not GM...
Yes, everything has multiple taxes, but we are talking about one, specific, tax by one, specific, entity. The federal government income tax that is applied twice to every dollar of corporate profit that makes it to the owner. Unlike your company profits, where the tax is applied only once.
How is that ethical? How do you justify taxing corporate profits twice, but those of your company only once? "Because there are lots of them? Because GM is bigger than your company? Because it is assumed that all partners in huge corporations are obviously rich and thus should pay more than their share?"
It is funny that you believe this to be what it is. I pay separate SS taxes directly to them through a separate contribution. Funny how you think it is different than what it states.
It asks me on my taxes if I contributed to the daily running of my business to determine whether I am an owner or a shareholder. The IRS even makes a distinction why don't you. Because it is convenient for your argument. You don't own GM nor does any other single owner. You SHARE the profits with only risking your money. If you are a sole proprietorship and you file for Chapter 11 they can come after your assets (house, car, bank accounts etc.) and that is ownership not stockholder.
You still want this argument? What does the tax specifically say on the form? Self employment tax. As clear as the nose on your face. Your argument wishes to change words and definitions which are not what the forms state. I am taxed as an OWNER of a business and then for net income from the business.
There is no assumption of corporate wealth as the basis for a corporate tax. There is a correct assumption of investments taxable under the tax code as income for both the corporation and the shareholder who derives a profit or loss if they can prove it.
If you're paying a separate SS tax outside of your business (and not from being an employee) then I'm in real trouble because I never have. Can you point me to the form(s) where I need to declare that tax, and get it paid?
Or will you just point me to the same Schedule C where (how coincidentally!) the two percentages used to calculate the "self employment" tax is identical to the two percentages used to calculate SS taxes to be withheld by an employer from an employee's check? Don't forget, we're speaking of realities here, not spun garbage where words are changed to influence the reader into believing something that isn't true. The IRS or anyone can change the words, but when the reality and facts are examined "self employment" tax is identical to "FICA" tax, right down to the penny AND the rationale for collecting it (did you look at the link?). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck and not an eagle.
You use the same "risk" argument as that for a low capital gains tax, and that has always been an argument that I totally reject. Legal, because the powerful don't want to pay taxes, but hardly ethical. The stockholder risks their money, so should pay less taxes, while the employee risking their health and life should pay more. Not reasonable, any more than paying double income taxes on the same bit of income is because money is risked rather than a house.
You also seem to skip right over the concept of what happens to shareholders when a company is sold - that the proceeds from the sale go to the owners (shareholders) is a pretty good indication that they DO own the company. Risk outside the cash investment or not, they own it or they would not receive the proceeds when sold.
I am not going to make my taxes public record as you seem to wish to get at. Maybe you should consult the SS administration as you seem to be confused as to your tax liabilities.
As far as your so called ownership of investment interest in publicly traded corporations why don't you go down there and show them your ownership and what they could do to increase their business portfolio. Your answer will prove just about how much you own that business.
You are just becoming argumentative and clearly don't wish to discuss the issue on an open line of communication so I will acquiesce to your belligerence and say as far as I am concerned the topic has run out its usefulness. Good luck with your SS.
Implicit in your post is that "showing up" means being socialist; giving money to those that have not earned it. Not everyone agrees that such a blanket attitude is a good thing.
Quality education is obviously evil.
Helping poorer countries = one way ticket to hell
Offering people from other countries the opportunity to study hard and thus improve their lives = basically Hitler.
Those dastardly Norwegians.
Somehow you conveniently forgot stealing money from someone in order to give it someone else, at gunpoint if necessary.
Now if the "takers" could find enough people willing to donate to their cause it might be different. But they can't, so they use force.
Or is it OK because "their heart is pure", or maybe because "the ends justifies the means"? Or just because YOU find the charity to be worthy and to heck with the real owners of the means to provide for others?
Except of course that Norwegians voted to implement these measures, if you have a problem with democratic taxation with representation then you can only be an anarchist and I know you aren't. Taxation by force is something literally every single nation on earth does.
In other words taxation with representation is not evil and Norway's openness, charity and brotherhood to all mankind with their tax income should absolutely be celebrated, it is truly amazing.
To a point, that is correct; taxation is a necessary evil to maintain the country and society. Taxation to maintain the wars and nuclear proliferation is a necessary evil (just ask the military). Taxation to bail out the banks is necessary (just ask the bankers). More taxation to provide breaks to corporations to bolster their profit is necessary (just as the corporations). Taxation to maintain the lifestyle of those that don't want to support themselves is not, unless you ask the poor, standing there with their hand out. If the man in the street actually supported that, it would not be necessary as he would already have given what the poor needed (or just wanted).
The point being that as soon as you accept forced taxation to support the charity programs of the liberals, you also have to accept the forced taxation to support all the others that want the wonderful "free" money as well. Or accept the hypocrisy that goes with giving to one but not another.
The hypocrisy lies in claiming forceful taxation is wrong and then supporting it when you agree with the measures or cause i.e. what you are doing.
I on the other hand have no issue with taxation and am praising a particularly successful and generous use of it's funds i.e. not hypocritical.
Also there is no hypocrisy at all in arguing that people in need have greater claim to charity than those not in need and it is preposterous in the extreme to suggest otherwise, you wouldn't walk up to someone giving money to say the Red Cross and slap the money out of their hand declaring that everyone has an equal right to it and asking why are they being hypocrites by only giving it to the sick and hungry.
Your argument is totally baseless and I think you know it, you are just desperately clutching at straws to find some argument why good education, charity and openness are somehow bad.
That good education by the way would go a long way towards explaining why the unemployment rate in Norway is less than half ours.
"The hypocrisy lies in claiming forceful taxation is wrong and then supporting it when you agree with the measures or cause i.e. what you are doing."
Oh? And what did I support? I didn't mention any support of anything - just gave examples of forced taxation that YOU are unlikely to support, all while claiming high taxation for government purposes is a good thing.
Good to hear you are for ever higher taxation. I do presume that you have no problem with corporate bailouts and the rest of the list I mentioned, then.
NO ONE has a "claim" to forced charity. That's what you don't seem to understand; that no one has a claim to the belongings of another (ethical claim, that is - with enough votes the legal claim is quite legitimate, if immoral). A liberal failure, one they never seem to understand. The only person with a legitimate claim to their wealth is the owner; not the neighbor down the street or across the country.
Education is good, charity is good, and openness is (usually) good. Forcing others to supply the means for it is NOT good.
And no, a free college education does not explain why the unemployment in Norway is under 3% (actual figures for Jan. is 3.7%). We have sufficient college grads for our needs and producing more will not add to the ranks of employed.
But I notice you did address the concept that if the general electorate found higher taxes for charity (free education) to be a good thing why it is even needed. Why don't those people simply contribute of their own free will instead of forcing higher taxes on themselves? Because, maybe, freely given contributions can't support the level of charity they want to see?
If no one has a claim to forced charity then I hope you aren't using those forced charity roads man. But you are, your argument is simply based on hypocrisy, you can't keep decrying forced charity while supporting it.
I never claimed it was under 3%
On the contrary the US has several skills shortages due to lack of both college and trade educations (both of which Norway provides free) not to mention that people with higher education ar emore likely to start businesses.
Because the government has the ability to raise and organize funds in a reliable fashion through taxation, thus most Norwegians support it. Just like you support the same being done to build roads rather than demanding that people voluntarily donate to build the roads, which is similarly daft.
But roads aren't charity: I pay taxes, taxes buy roads which I then use. On the other hand, I pay taxes, taxes buy education for someone else that could pay for it themselves, I get nothing for it. Unless you want to say that that education will provide inventions (which I pay for again through purchases) and I use them?
At the end of the road it is a vast difference (as GA Anderson points out) in philosophy; some want a nanny state to care for them, some don't, and those that don't dislike paying for that nanny state.
And yes, you claimed Norway's unemployment was under 3%. "...the unemployment rate in Norway is less than half ours."; ours is under 6%, making theirs under 3%.
Yes but you don't use all the roads you pay for and I am sure there are plenty of people who don't drive, or indeed use roads at all, they are not exempt.
More importantly you absolutely do benefit from educating people, I can present all the statistics you like on how much less likely people with higher education are to commit crimes which you may well be the victim of. Oh and look at that Norway's crime rate is way way lower than ours (obviously also other contributing factors such as a progressive prison system).
Indeed my mistake, it has been a while since I looked at the US unemployment rate, it was significantly higher last time, good news indeed apologies for the error.
You won't find a person in the country that does not use the road system. If nothing else to bring food to them. The interstate system of roads made great changes in our country, and they were nearly all for the better. So...taxation resulting in roads benefits everyone. Now, the "Bridge to Nowhere" that Alaskan politicians wanted the rest of us to pay for - THAT would be a great example of charity gone wild (in useless road building this time, for a select handful of people).
And are those statistics showing that education is the cause or just showing a correlation between the two? Correlation does not mean causation, you know - it is quite likely that the people willing to put out the effort for a better education are also the ones disinclined to commit crimes in the first place. This is much like saying that more guns cause more murders, but that was debunked long ago, too. While the US has more guns, and more murders per capita than most nations, there is not a causal relationship between the two.
Apology accepted: I only knew of it because my state posted their lowest unemployment rates in about 3 decades and it interested me enough to look around some.
The interstate highway system exists in order to better accommodate a slave class, enabling them to more efficiently labor, produce, and consume. Thus, an even greater benefit to the ruling elite. Once you have taken a mans free will, and essentially cut off his legs, of course he's going to "get on the bus", as he has no other choice.
You will be, of course, speaking for your own slavery. For myself I use those roads almost exclusively to visit sights I wish to see via motorhome - no slavery indicated although I DO purchase fuel on the way.
Of course, I also choose to purchase from Amazon, and UPS uses those roads (as well as the air) to bring what I chose to order - does that make me a slave?
During the antebellum, there were those slaves in the south who didn't want freedom. They reasoned, just like you, that they had it pretty good, and besides: "Where are we gonna sleep and how we gonna eat outside the plantation?" For someone used to a slave mentality, these are reasonable questions.
And the solution? Move into the wilds of Alaska and live in total anarchy?
No! The solution is: Move to Norway and get a good education.
Already have one, thanks - 20 years of schooling is sufficient.
As to moving to Norway, I prefer not to be a slave to a government that takes such a large majority of the fruits of my labor. It is mine, I worked for it, and I prefer to spend or use it as I see fit rather than let some faceless bureaucrat have it for his purposes. Obama said it well in a recent speech when he indicated that he wants to tax wealth (not earnings, but wealth) because, in his words, he has "a better use" for it than that owner. Now that's slavery!
Yet Norway has a higher freedom index and it's citizens feel more free, isn't that crazy
If the government takes more of your income through taxes (which actually unless you make $300 000+ they don't) but you make way more money in Norway in which do you have more money to spend as you wish (the answer is Norway for pretty much everyone 99%+).
So by your own definition Norwegians are more free.
It wasn't hard to predict that disagreement to your OP would devolve to criticism of Norway's way of doing things, ie. taxation, social support ideology.
Oh well. But just to look at an apples to apples comparison, your following point might not be a clear as you indicate.
Ballpark 2013 numbers put Norway's avg. income at $55k (+/-) and the U.S. at $52k (+/-)
Norway's avg. income tax, plus pension tax, for that amount is 47% (+/-) and the U.S. is 31% (+/- inc. payroll tax)
Oops... Norwegians don't keep more of their money. But, but, wait.... most indications are that Norwegians are fine with that, they feel what they get from the government is worth the extra taxes.
Which brings me back to my initial response - Americans appear to have a different perspective of what they want their government to do for them. You might not agree with Wilderness' perspective, but it does reflect the perspective of the majority of Americans. And it might not be too much of a stretch to say that judging by the U.S. immigration problems - a lot of the world's citizen's agree with him.
Everything in life has a cost. Your promotion of Norway's way of life indicates you are willing to pay that cost, but the opposition to your contention, (and immigration statistics), indicate that there are a lot of us that are not.
You are wrong!
The real conversation is about values. What is important to the individual, and what price is the collective worth?
Taxes are irrelevant. They have been much higher in the U.S. and it did not change our national perspective of what we valued as important. Individual responsibility.
ps. I think the "high/low taxes" argument is an empty one. Our country has thrived and suffered in periods with high taxes and low taxes. Millionaires, (billionaires nowadays), have been created and destroyed in both environments. Achievers will achieve regardless of the tax environment. It is only the "support" programs that live or die by the tax rate - so tax rate isn't a valid discussion point in this conversation. In my opinion of course.
Sorry, but I don't view "freedom" as accepting what someone else dictates you do with your possessions. "Freedom" would be doing what you want to do with them.
As GA points out, Norwegians don't make as much as the average US citizen does. At least that they can call their own and bring home.
But there is another factor in there, too, and that is the cost of living. With their smaller take home pay, they also face higher costs for nearly everything. A loaf of bread, for instance, will set you back $3 as opposed to $2 here. A Volkswagon Golf costs $33,000 vs $18,000 here. 2 pounds of potatoes is $2, vs 5 pounds for the same price here. 6Mbps internet is $40 - about what I pay for 12Mbps. A one bedroom flat, outside city center, is $1255/month - for less than $1,000 I can get a 3 bedroom house where I am. A pair of men's leather shoes will run you $138 - I've never paid that in my life!
Yes, Norwegians pay, and pay heavily, for the freedom to give their income to their government for disbursement as the politicians see fit.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co … try=Norway
So, bravo Norway!
Why is the obsession of US citizens, that they will only do something "to be the best" ? Then, they will never be! They have only created an illusion. Norway, if it is doing that, it is doing it because their motivation was never "to be the best" in that competitieve sense. They just wanted to do something good.
In every thing, this is what I always encounter among US citizens who are at least appreciating what is happening in other countries.
That's a nice beginning, but mostly, they seem not to have an idea of the fact that "being the best paranoia" as aim, has been exact the problem of US, + all the world victims of that problem. If US would just want to be good, then they would let the others be good too. If they want to be the best, they have to conquer and "appear the best" by making the others get less good.
I do think it is in the collective American psyche to be competitive more than most, not necessarily a bad thing at all, it is my hope that one day we will compete to be the best country on earth in the ways that matter, community, generosity etc. we certainly have the resources and situation to be thus if we commit to it.
It's fascinating to hear the beneficiaries of a squatter nation speaking of stealing money, or anything for that matter.
Are you under the misunderstanding that Columbus started a new nation?
Or did the people, 300 years and many generations later, form a "more perfect union"?
No, there is no misunderstanding. Have you ever heard of colonialism? I am baffled why you felt the need to mention Columbus. A squatter is anyone who occupies land without title or right. To suggest that any immigrant who came during or after the time of George Washington does not fit the definition of a squatter is pure nonsense. It is equally absurd to suggest that the Indigenous themselves were initially squatters, which is the direction an apologist will attempt to lead this argument. The purpose of my statement was not to get us lost in a room full of mirrors, but to highlight the hypocrisy of a nation that prides itself on being a "nation of laws", when in truth it is a nation built upon lawlessness, outright murder, and theft. To clarify: Every colonialist nation on this continent is a squatter nation.
Ah! I get it - you are referring to the so-called "indigenous" people of the Americas, that kicked off the prior people and occupied their land without any title or right (outside of might); the people that were here during the time of Washington.
That was, of course, an egregious violation of modern ethical standards, but it was long in the past. Far too far to do anything about now.
this is in response to corporate owners, i.e. shareholders (me) paying taxes twice. i own shares of lilly, e.g. it pays minimal federal tax due to offshoring, let's say 10% on that dollar, leaving $.90. then i pay 15% on my dividend of .90 leaving me about 76.5 cents. i'm quite happy with my haul and would be happy even if it were less, because i use roads, went to public schools, live in relative safety, and don't like to see anyone starving.
I assume you find it all right to tax some of the population twice on the same earnings (income tax) while others pay only once. I don't follow that reasoning, though, and don't understand WHY it is all right - what the ethical rationalization could be for that.
i don't feel cheated. once was corporate tax. once was personal income tax. it's just the way the thing is set up. people get quite wealthy anyway. i don't see where anyone is hurt.
Greetings cathylynn99, I hope you don't mind if I jump in, (Wilderness is used to it by now), but I think the essence of Wilderness' point is the concept that the government is taxing the same dollar twice.
You may not mind, and that is your choice. But I think his point is the question of why does the government tax corporation-earned money different from other income? As a sole proprietor he doesn't pay twice on money his business earns.
Of course that is a simplistic analogy. In reality our government taxes a dollar as many times as it can get away with. License fees, registration fees, regulatory fees, sales taxes multiple times from raw product to finished product to consumer purchase, etc. etc. etc. But as long as you, (generic you of course), don't see those fees and re-taxings they don't bother you. Corporate double-taxing just happens to be an easily explainable example.
Good to see you participating in the forums.
Yes, most money is taxed multiple times. But not by the same agency, levying the same (income) tax more than once. And no, changing the terminology from "personal income tax" to "corporate income tax" doesn't change anything - the same person (stockholder) is paying an income tax both times.
But both are "personal income" tax. It is the stockholder of that corporation that ends up paying both, and changing the words from "personal" to "corporate" doesn't change that fact.
"People don't get hurt" - I presume that it would be OK to quadruple your own tax because we know (without knowing you or your circumstances) that you won't be hurt? By that reasoning we should just confiscate ALL income, whether personal, corporate or other.
by Riece22 months ago
The common wisdom is that you should go to college, get a good education, and find a job afterwards and you will be financially successful. Isn't that an outdated concept? The average college grad is unemployed for two...
by ahorseback13 days ago
Property taxation on the state and local levels varies in incredible amounts , Property taxes primarily can vary from a few hundred to Twenty thousand dollars for a half acre home ? ...
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Has a middle-class person approached you asking for money recently? (middle class = judging by the type of clothing and not being unkempt) And were you asked for money in an unusual place, like a middle-class shopping...
by James Smith5 years ago
Lauryn Hill responds to tax evasion chargeshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18407555 "I did this in order to build a community of people, like-minded in their desire for freedom and the right to pursue...
by Julianna8 years ago
If you could give away a million dollars at this very moment, how would you disburse the funds? Keep in mind you do not need it and cannot keep it for yourself?
by Jacqueline7 years ago
This is an essay title my English lecturer gave out. Any opinions?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.