I moved my blog over to http://elaine.jumping-duck.com.
Jumping Duck is a media publishing company. Its new book just came out the other day, The Indefatigable Wright Brothers by Erin Gerecke. An excellent read. Check it out on Jumping-Duck.com.
OK. See you on the other side.
It's Saturday, and the first conversation I heard was about how people take advantage of social programs in this country, and how a nationalized health care system would never work.
Now, why would a nationalized health care system not work in the United States of America?
I've heard people say that it's too expensive.
I've heard people say that it's too easy for the "good-for-nuthins" to take advantage of it.
But I'm not sure if I have heard a very good conclusive reason as to why it wouldn't be a good idea to have a good national basic health care system.
So I decided to ask my friend, Rene, who's a finance person at the Union Bank of Switzerland in Switzerland, to give me a more European perspective.
He grew up in Germany and is now living in Switzerland.
He told me that, depending on your income and marital status, you may be taxed up to 60% of your salary.
So Germans typically bitch about their high taxes a lot.
(here, I might add that Germany carries a bigger burden of the EU's health care bill than other EU countries ... ya know, burden of WWII ... guilt.)
Because social welfare "goes to the extreme," in Rene's opinion, the "overprotectiveness" of the German government produced the effect of some Germans refusing to work, since social security benefits are high enough for a good living (the worst American nightmare, right?) However, it is worthy to say that Germany has great a infrastructure, edu system, health system, and other social programs.
But then, in Switzerland, things are different because the Swiss ruled that taxes should not exceed 1/3 of a person's income. Also, maximum tax rate (which includes -- *gasp!* -- health insurance, pension fund, etc.) does not exceed 30%. In some states (or cantons, as they apparently call it), it is as low as 13%.
Yet, at the same time, the Swiss have a remarkable infrastructure, good public schools, awesome colleges and social system ....
So, I guess bitching about taxation is virtually unheard of in Switzerland.
Even though not everything is peachy over in Euro Land, it looks like things are somewhat working in at least Germany and Switzerland ... at least in the categories of 1) health care, 2) education, 3) social security and 4) public infrastructure.
The next on my list is taking a closer look at Hong Kong, for a more extended and global view on this loose topic.
This is not just because Hong Kong is where I lived for half my life, it's also because Hong Kong is famous for just plain how well they have been doing for the past century.
Coming from complete poverty after WWII, it definitely picked up from there to become "the world's freest economy" according to both Economic Freedom of the World and the Index of Economic Freedom.
Its health and prosperity is one of the best in the world.
And a lot of people attribute its growth and steadiness to its tax system.
These people seem to all notice that HK has remarkably low tax rates (and I remember, as a child, they had us MEMORIZE that HK is so great because of its low taxes -- haha!!).
If the Swiss 30% is low, then Hong Kong's maximum tax rate of 20% is remarkable.
But HOW do people of Hong Kong (I guess "my people") do it?
How do they make it so low in taxation, but excel in those 4 areas AND do so well with economic growth?
With that said, how does the US tax system compare to those of these three places?
How does taxation relate to the future of the United States? (obviously, it has a lot to do with the country's future, but HOW?)
What are the rationale behind the way the German, Swiss, Hong Kong and American tax systems are set up -- Why do the things we do?
My findings for now are basic, pre-mature and inconclusive. But my questions should yield some good insight into what the US can learn, so to improve its own tax system. It'll be an on-going investigation (as much as time allows anyway). I'll keep updating as I find out more.
Thank you, Devlin, for tipping me off to this nice and neat flow chart for a better understanding!
Now we know what the heck Pretty Sarah was thinking!
Tina Fey, Sarah Palin … wait, who’s running for veep again?
SNL Katie Couric and Sarah Palin
If I had money, I’d blow it all at the bookstore.
I’m adding Maya Angelou’s new book, Letters to My Daughter, to my wishlist that is most probably never going to be fulfilled. haha!
Well, there’s always the library … if the government doesn’t cut that, too.
My notes during the veep debate:
Pretty Sarah ...
1. did her hair differently. I think she might have added some reddish brown highlights in there. (OK OK. I'll focus on things that are more important.)
2. likes to be cute and wink when she thinks people should take her word for it.
3. wore really cute red heels with her black outfit -- gotta give her credit for that! (What are you talking about?? This IS important! It is NOT sad that these are the first things I noticed about the debate. OK. Maybe it is a LITTLE boring. Just a little.)
4. looked uncomfortable standing in those tall heels for 90+ minutes ... or was it because of the debate pressure?
5. always has cute eyeglasses on ... where the heck did she get those??
6. scribbles things down a lot, but I have no idea what she could possibly be writing down. (the word "Maverick"?)
7. likes to spend lots of time talking like a mommy and not enough time talking about what she was asked. ("Now now, Joey. You know that's not right, don't you, honey? ... Oh crap, the yellow light is on! Uh, uh, uh, ... John McCain is my daddy ... I mean, Maverick?")
8. likes to give shout-outs to her fam, like her dad, brother, granddaddy, great aunt, mother's half sister's daughter's ex-boyfriend's former best friend ... wait, wait, she's not done yet! Turn that yellow light off, damn it!
9. smiles a lot, which is great ... even if it's because she has not idea what the heck to say.
10. is a pretty lady! If she doesn't win VP, she should totally get MILF of the Year.
Ole Joe ...
1. is old ... but not as old as the ole Maverick.
2. is pretty suave, in a "relax, I got this one" sorta way. In his younger years, he might have been pretty studly.
3. likes the word "Bush's." Bushhhhhhhhs.
4. likes to LOL. I'm sure Pretty Sarah noticed it.
5. makes gaffes look popular, like an Oompa Loompa tan that teenagers (even in the rainy Northwest) sport nowadays.
6. tries to be a gentleman. He wasn't too hard on Pretty Sarah. Maybe he was afraid that the Mob of Moms outside would bust through the doors and beat his ass.
7. notices the time limit light this time!
8. forgot that he is supposed to like clean coal technology for a moment ... wait, or is he supposed to like clean coal technology? I'm not sure. Maybe he does, since he looks like such a nice man.
9. wishes he could be as cute as Pretty Sarah when using homespun euphemisms for swear words, like "darn," "gosh," and "geez."
10. tries not to look at Pretty Sarah, so that he doesn't bust out saying, "I love you, Tina Fey!"
It seems that there are times when we are (or I am) so obsessed with what we deserve or don't deserve, that we forget what "deserve" means.
How do we judge "I deserve better treatment than that" or "I worked hard enough to deserve more reward"? How do we know that we "deserve" to have more than others?
Do we distinguish what we deserve from an overt sense of entitlement?
I really don't have all the answers, obviously, and I don't know where to even begin to make a fair judgment. But I do know that often times, what we do deserve is already in the experience, no just the reward or the result of the experience.
I wonder, if we remember that better, perhaps we'd view life quite a bit differently.
Posts
All Comments
