Norway becomes first country to kill FM radio

[AresKrieger]

10 hours ago, ChrEW said:

Actually a bit more complex. If we take the example with the 23000 € car, there is 25 % VAT which means the sale price before tax is 28750 €. Then you add 105 % tax of the first 11380 € of price before tax which is 11949 € and 150 % of the remaining value (17370 €) = 26055 €.

So the total price for the 23000 € car is 28750+11949+17370 = 58069 € which about 2,5 times the "factory price". 

Glad I don't live there, I'll take my $8000 toyota thank you very much

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Switch Retirement Plan and Pension with Social Security, and tweak healthcare to Obamacare, and those are all things US citizens pay taxes for, kupo.

 

 

Also, cutting taxes in the US is a huge political buzz phrase because we're taxed too much to survive on what should be decent money here, Kupo. And Obamacare just made it worse, kupo.  

The Affordable Care Act bares literally zero relation to the public health system of my country and other European countries. I don't know much about US Social Security so can't comment on that much, I understand it is actually fairly decent?

 

As far as being taxed too much, you might feel you are which is a perfectly valid opinion to have but what are you measuring against? Simply comparing what you are paid to what you net in the bank or are you comparing to other countries, if it's the latter then the US taxes are much much lower than most.

 

 

OECD average is 34% (2012), US is 24% (ish, your system is very complex and state policies differ etc)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-low-are-us-taxes-compared-to-other-countries/267148/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I understand it is actually fairly decent?

When govt. employees have their shit together, and it isn't being twisted/abused by illegal immigrants and lazy fucks, it's a good system.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Simply comparing what you are paid to what you net in the bank or are you comparing to other countries, if it's the latter then the US taxes are much much lower than most.

How much one is taxed is meaningless without the context of how much it costs to survive in a country. In many places where taxes are high, the costs of living are relatively lower.

 

In the US, it costs to much to have our taxes set where they are, with prices of necessities being as high as they are (often due to taxation and/or unjust/ uneffective regulation).

 

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Switch Retirement Plan and Pension with Social Security, and tweak healthcare to Obamacare, and those are all things US citizens pay taxes for, kupo.

 

 

Also, cutting taxes in the US is a huge political buzz phrase because we're taxed too much to survive on what should be decent money here, Kupo. And Obamacare just made it worse, kupo.  

taxed too much? you do realize the was majority of your taxes goes no to obamacare or social security, but to the military. I dont remember exactly, but out of 14% federal tax, 6.6% goes to the US military complex. 5% goes to corporations, rest goes to government systems and then you have state specific tax ontop of this.

 

Obamacare and social security accounts for less then 2% of your taxes. If you make 60k USD a year, that is sub 1200$ per year... in comparison, you pay 3000$ a year in subsidizing fortune 500 companies so they can make even more money, money which does not return in taxes because they have their corporate headquarters or main branch outside of the US. 

 

What is screwing the US over, is the corporations and military complex, they loot your wallet with relatively high prices (%based vs income), they are subsidized by the government . Your military complex wastes money on weapon systems that never see the light of day, yet costs millions upon millions upon millions.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

When govt. employees have their shit together, and it isn't being twisted/abused by illegal immigrants and lazy fucks, it's a good system.

How much one is taxed is meaningless without the context of how much it costs to survive in a country. In many places where taxes are high, the costs of living are relatively lower.

 

In the US, it costs to much to have our taxes set where they are, with prices of necessities being as high as they are (often due to taxation and/or unjust/ uneffective regulation).

 

Cost of living is lower due to taxes paying for large parts of essential services, we even have policies for example that make sure staple foods/fresh fruit and veg is affordable. Health care visits and items are subsidized. This is how social tax policies work, very much a pre-pay system but where this hurts is if your not a frequent user of those services.

 

You can more greatly effect where you spend your money than I can.

 

You can see the direct results of these types of tax policies here:

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/auckland/new-york-city? (New Zealand)

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/sydney/new-york-city (Australia)

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/london/new-york-city (England)

 

Take special note of the personal care category items and to an extend food. In the town I live in the equivalent income in New York is 38% higher, so it may be 30% more expensive to live in New York but I earn 38% less, after tax. I would link the income comparison evidence except I'm not actually going to show where I live, other than country.

 

I did however compare to a few other cities around the world and their average income was more than New York so yes I can agree you can be worse off than many other places, in almost every case the difference is so great lowering taxes isn't going to make up the difference.

[Mihle]

Do everyone, no matter how much they earn, have the same tax in % in US?

[Prysin]

22 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Do everyone, no matter how much they earn, have the same tax in % in US?

More or less. Until you are super rich. Then you pay no taxes 

[Prysin]

@leadeater

See if you can find a comparison between Oslo and new York.... Especially after the 2015 real estate market rally

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Prysin said:

@leadeater

See if you can find a comparison between Oslo and new York.... Especially after the 2015 real estate market rally

Oslo vs New York:

Income: 22% lower than NY

Living Cost: 16% cheaper than NY

 

RIP Oslo .

[normpearii]

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

taxed too much? you do realize the was majority of your taxes goes no to obamacare or social security, but to the military. I dont remember exactly, but out of 14% federal tax, 6.6% goes to the US military complex. 5% goes to corporations, rest goes to government systems and then you have state specific tax ontop of this.

 

Obamacare and social security accounts for less then 2% of your taxes. If you make 60k USD a year, that is sub 1200$ per year... in comparison, you pay 3000$ a year in subsidizing fortune 500 companies so they can make even more money, money which does not return in taxes because they have their corporate headquarters or main branch outside of the US. 

 

What is screwing the US over, is the corporations and military complex, they loot your wallet with relatively high prices (%based vs income), they are subsidized by the government . Your military complex wastes money on weapon systems that never see the light of day, yet costs millions upon millions upon millions.

 

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org



A decade ago, Medicare/Medicaid used to be nearly equal to military spending, Social Security used to be slightly below the both of them.

Military spending has gone down 50 billion in the last few years, while Medicare/medicaid has super ballooned with the Affordable Care Act (The budget items for ACA are just thrown into "Medicare/Medicaid" even though they are separate.), and Social Security has been exponential growing in cost to maintain itself for years. 

[OleST]

f*ck our government, their lack of brain is beyond disturbing.

[Prysin]

58 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Oslo vs New York:

Income: 22% lower than NY

Living Cost: 16% cheaper than NY

 

RIP Oslo .

But that should be without 2016 real estate prices.. Which increased by 23% in oslo in 2016 alone

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

But that should be without 2016 real estate prices.. Which increased by 23% in oslo in 2016 alone

Not sure. The site claimed to be using recent data, but you can claim anything on the internet .

[Prysin]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not sure. The site claimed to be using recent data, but you can claim anything on the internet .

They aren't. Their prices for Oslo is closer to a 2014-2015 average 

 

Not to mention their internet cost is grossly wrong. I think there isn't a single ISP offering below 25/10Mbps these days. And that usually cost around 399-499NOK a month 

[OlavEmil]

Focusing on one of the alternatives is the only sensitive thing to do. With DAB+ being obviously superior to FM, it is an easy choice. 59% of the people asked oppose to the idea because they don't know what they are talking about, and the last 1% oppose because they are huge FM fanboys who have some weird obsession over FM radio, despite DAB+ being much better in pretty much every sense.

[spellmanuk]

makes to much money for the government in the uk for them to ever kill it since everyone should buy a radio and tv licence 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Prysin said:

They aren't. Their prices for Oslo is closer to a 2014-2015 average 

 

Not to mention their internet cost is grossly wrong. I think there isn't a single ISP offering below 25/10Mbps these days. And that usually cost around 399-499NOK a month 

Yea you can ignore the speed the reference, it actually just means the cheapest plan. Unless people update/correct prices things are going to be wrong.

[SurvivorNVL]

7 hours ago, normpearii said:

http://www.usdebtclock.org



A decade ago, Medicare/Medicaid used to be nearly equal to military spending, Social Security used to be slightly below the both of them.

Military spending has gone down 50 billion in the last few years, while Medicare/medicaid has super ballooned with the Affordable Care Act (The budget items for ACA are just thrown into "Medicare/Medicaid" even though they are separate.), and Social Security has been exponential growing in cost to maintain itself for years. 

We'll eventually need to take the long-term Japanese approach to Social Security and sacrifice one or two generations on it or take the Chilean approach and hyper-privatize everything from social security to medical care again.  Hell, I remember seeing something about the savings in association of privatizing our national parks, and that basically being a felt kind of relief on tax payers similar to cutting away 3% of taxes.

[RocketFarmer]

Sounds like an ingenious promotion to get people to listen to FM radio.

 

Most stations are already simulcasting on multiple platforms.  AM/FM/Digital.  Let the consumers decide how they want it delivered.

[MoonSpot]

1 hour ago, SurvivorNVL said:

We'll eventually need to take the long-term Japanese approach to Social Security and sacrifice one or two generations on it

You mean steal from those generations to double down benefits for the others, and it will probably happen.  Probably the boomer-ecos children (current children & ones being born now are a bulge demographically speaking AND they don't get to vote) are going to be offered up to pay for military spending, healthcare and benefits for the generation(s) that caused the mess.  So much for fate not being a thing, eh.  Will be interesting to see the result of subpar education + no effective social security and cuts across the board on everything just for these children.  Nothing good comes out of playing favourites IMO, especially when government does it.

[PCBjon]

Shame I enjoy listening to fm/am radio But then again I grew up recording songs on the radio onto cassette tape and having my tunes for the week.

[Mihle]

6 hours ago, RocketFarmer said:

Sounds like an ingenious promotion to get people to listen to FM radio.

 

Most stations are already simulcasting on multiple platforms.  AM/FM/Digital.  Let the consumers decide how they want it delivered.

But it costs the government more money to have multiple of them running.

[OlavEmil]

Exactly. Or to be more precise, it costs the society (a lot) more money to have both systems running. Money that could and should be put to better use. 

[MMKing]

The only reason i listen to the goddamn thing is because it's there. Now i have the choice between bringing CDs to the car, or actually going out of my way and pay money to get DAB+. It's all crap anyway. Modern music is only slightly more tolerable than not listening to anything at all, what the people on the radio says is not very intelligent and i can read the newspaper for free at work or read the news on the internet.

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

28 minutes ago, MMKing said:

The only reason i listen to the goddamn thing is because it's there. Now i have the choice between bringing CDs to the car, or actually going out of my way and pay money to get DAB+. It's all crap anyway. Modern music is only slightly more tolerable than not listening to anything at all, what the people on the radio says is not very intelligent and i can read the newspaper for free at work or read the news on the internet.

 

 

amen!