tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 11:10:51

虾米居 发表于 2013-1-5 07:07 static/image/common/back.gif
top 1% 交了全部联邦税的36%,top 5%交了近60%,top 10%交了70%。2009年的数据 http ...

这个top是收入top还是财产top?我感觉应该是前者。 把这top10%加起来是美国人总收入或是总财产的多少?

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 11:12:07

隧道 发表于 2013-1-5 16:45 static/image/common/back.gif
你在国内?美国这边扔垃圾也是要收费的。
家里有一摞整整齐齐的包装箱,是纸板的。
想着扔了可惜,就找地 ...

唉,最浪费的米国,不过貌似金属还是卖到钱的,我们那边的小秘喝完了soda从来不扔,说会去卖废铝。

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 11:13:20

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-4 15:58 static/image/common/back.gif
中国现在的人口老龄化也很严重。现在中国妇女的生育率是1.6。未来即使取消计划生育政策后,我觉得也不会 ...

白美的数据是多少?欧洲和日本差不多?

隧道 发表于 2013-1-6 13:48:57

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 11:12 static/image/common/back.gif
唉,最浪费的米国,不过貌似金属还是卖到钱的,我们那边的小秘喝完了soda从来不扔,说会去卖废铝。
...

这个我也卖过,结论是所谓的回收,绿色环保,都是资本家为了降低成本,实现利润最大化的谎言。
卖那些瓶子的钱还不够油费的。就算够油费,也不够耽误的时间,一般都要排队,然后过秤,或者挨个数个数。
那种所谓的回收再利用,只是指只回收那些特定型号,统一标准,统一形状,能重复使用的玻璃瓶子。
铝罐子就是回收原材料的。
我卖的除了玻璃啤酒瓶子之外,还有一些中国超市买的玻璃罐头瓶子,形状不一样。
结果人家告诉我只要那些有型号啤酒瓶子,没回收型号的玻璃瓶子不要。
我想那些玻璃罐头的瓶子也能回收材料,重新做成玻璃,就说免费给你们了。
结果人家说可以帮我处理,直接扔到垃圾桶里扔了。
我顿时明白了,人家只回收有资本家出价回收的洗洗再能用的瓶子,估计这样成本比新瓶子低。
资本家才懒得回收那些奇形怪状的玻璃,重新融化,重新做玻璃瓶子,估计成本比新瓶子高。

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-6 19:08:22

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 11:13 static/image/common/back.gif
白美的数据是多少?欧洲和日本差不多?

Fertility rate by race in 2008:

2.09 – All races
1.84 – Non-Hispanic white
2.11 – Non-Hispanic black
1.84 – American Indian, Native Alaskan
2.06 – Asian & Pacific Islander
2.99 – Hispanic

For other countries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

France: 2
Sweden: 2
UK: 1.94
Netherlands: 1.8
Russia: 1.5
Italy: 1.4
Spain: 1.4
Germany: 1.4

Hong Kong: 1.1
Macau: 1.1
Taiwan: 1.1

瓦片儿匠 发表于 2013-1-6 20:03:27

本帖最后由 瓦片儿匠 于 2013-1-6 20:08 编辑

其实……最后一段部分说中国也对,现在国内也是这样,赚快钱的思路,只要银行系统一宽松,钱就流向房地产,更可怕的是影子银行体系下各种方法借道进入房地产和政府融资平台,中国的不少地方也开始在玩借新还旧的把戏了,分税制改革未后,实际地方从中央拿到的转移支付并不算少,问题是地方财政的支用并无有效监督与限制,遂成胡花之势,渐开土地财政,所谓由奢入俭难是也,当然,好在中国还有强力的中央政府

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-6 22:14:39

瓦片儿匠 发表于 2013-1-6 06:03 static/image/common/back.gif
其实……最后一段部分说中国也对,现在国内也是这样,赚快钱的思路,只要银行系统一宽松,钱就流向房地产, ...

正是。中国经济需要中央政府强力拉住缰绳,否则这屁马也会乱跑。

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-6 22:17:56

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-6 05:08 static/image/common/back.gif
Fertility rate by race in 2008:

2.09 – All races


没想到港澳台出生率这么低,1.1,那不都是独生子女了?

猪头大将 发表于 2013-1-6 23:42:52

MacArthur 发表于 2013-1-5 04:11 static/image/common/back.gif
正是此理。比照中国政府则可以作为另一端的借鉴 - 效率倒是很高了,问题是有几个人真心地欢天喜地?

在这 ...

这次闯黄灯新规的废立就是一个典型。:L

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-7 00:23:48

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-6 22:17 static/image/common/back.gif
没想到港澳台出生率这么低,1.1,那不都是独生子女了?

这是我几天前在Financial Times读到的关于韩国生育率的文章。里面提到韩国父母重视子女教育,因此在子女教育上大量投资,花费过大,因此不愿意有很多孩子。


Low South Korean birth rate raises fears
By Simon Mundy in Seoul


Forced to decide between giving her daughter siblings or an expensive education, Hong Sung-ok saw little choice.

“I spend more than half my income on tutors and childcare expenses – it’s really expensive . . . That’s why I decided to have only one child.”

Ms Hong’s decision is the new norm in South Korea, where the fertility rate has fallen to the lowest level in the developed world. The country had a birth rate of 1.2 children per woman in 2010: even China, with its long-established one-child policy, had a rate of 1.6.

The phenomenon has provoked growing consternation at the demographic implications, with South Korea predicted to age more rapidly over the next 40 years than any other country. This could have a damaging impact on productivity and fiscal stability: the ratio of workers to elderly people is on course to fall from 4.5 to 1.2 by 2050, according to the OECD, the Paris-based group of countries which tries to promote stable economic growth.

“Korea is quickly turning into an aged society,” says Kwon Young-sun, an analyst at Nomura. Mr Kwon says the low birth rate is linked to a strong cultural emphasis on education: about three quarters of high-school students have private tuition and a similar proportion go on to university.

Parents worry that their children will struggle to find a good job, or even a suitable spouse, without a degree – and the steep associated costs discourage many from having more than one child. Education costs are a big contributor to South Korea’s soaring household debt, one of the heaviest burdens in the world at more than 160 per cent of income and a major drag on domestic consumption.

Park Geun-hye, elected last month as the country’s next president, has promised to tackle the problem by expanding state provision of childcare, and halving tuition fees. But critics say the latter measure will only increase the proportion of children going to university: a trend blamed for contributing to graduate unemployment of more than a fifth, as many university leavers hold out for a job befitting their qualifications rather than take an unskilled role.

The government has tried to weaken the perception of university education as a prerequisite for success. It put pressure on big companies to hire more non-graduates, and opened 21 “Meister” high schools where pupils are given technical training for specific fields such as shipbuilding and semiconductor manufacturing.

But even optimists admit it will take years to change perceptions: a government study two years ago found that 93 per cent of parents expect their children to attain at least a four-year university degree.

“It’s a very competitive society – sometimes too competitive,” says Lee Jong-wha, an economic adviser to Lee Myung-bak, the departing president.

Up to secondary school level, South Korea’s education system is world-leading – its 15-year-olds came first in the developed world in literacy and maths, and third in science, in a 2010 study by the OECD. But the same body warns that the proliferation of universities resulting from surging demand has “inevitably led to some deterioration in the quality of Korea’s tertiary sector, which does not score high in international rankings”.

The OECD recommends that the state concentrates public funding on the highest-ranked universities. But according to Mr Lee, who will soon return to a position in academia, a broader change of approach is needed.

“If you attend classes here, there’s virtually no discussion at all,” he says. “The professor speaks for 99 per cent of the time, and there’s no question-and-answer. I’m not saying we need to switch to a western education system – ours continues to produce good-quality students – but as our wider industry structure becomes more innovative and technology-focused, it requires graduates with creative ability.”

Beyond the economic concerns, some worry that young people are being burdened with excessive expectations and spending too much of their childhood in the classroom.

“Students at all levels are suffering from stress,” says Lee Young-tak, an official at the Korean Teachers’ Union. “The system puts too much emphasis on college admission and it does not nurture students’ talents.”



晨枫 发表于 2013-1-7 00:27:49

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-6 10:23 static/image/common/back.gif
这是我几天前在Financial Times读到的关于韩国生育率的文章。里面提到韩国父母重视子女教育,因此在子女 ...

可以理解。中国大城市里即使放开生育,估计生育率也会比较低。日本的情况应该和韩国相似?

tanis 发表于 2013-1-7 00:52:52

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-6 19:08 static/image/common/back.gif
Fertility rate by race in 2008:

2.09 – All races


原来欧洲也比香港澳门来的多。。。 我还以为俄国是最低的呢。汗。 米国白人1.84, 比我想象的高不少啊。

tanis 发表于 2013-1-7 00:54:56

隧道 发表于 2013-1-6 13:48 static/image/common/back.gif
这个我也卖过,结论是所谓的回收,绿色环保,都是资本家为了降低成本,实现利润最大化的谎言。
卖那些瓶 ...

原来是这样。。。洗吧洗吧继续用。。。无语!!

五月 发表于 2013-1-7 01:35:51

tangotango 发表于 2013-1-4 14:46 static/image/common/back.gif
如果国债冲下了悬崖会有什么后果?大不了国债无法偿还,成为废纸。一切清零,从头再来。
怎么觉得是那些买 ...

不行啊。国债的大头在美国人民自己手里

guagua 发表于 2013-1-7 02:49:49

晨枫老大将问题讲得很清楚。赞一个。
但是这一段:
“不过最大的输家实际上是美国人民,是美国民主。全体美国人称为两党政治的人质,一般民众只有目瞪口呆地看着“泰坦尼克”号冲向冰山,但毫无办法。民主的要旨本来是在不同政见中集思广益,博采众长,最后形成一个最优决策。但在两党都拒绝妥协的情况下,这变成了一场聋子的对话。“
是我不赞成的.

我觉得老兵把问题的根源讲透了:
"问题出在了体制上。"

在责任上,我倾向于Dracula的说法,
"改革最重要的障碍不在于两党政客,而在于选民自己。"

在我看来,美国的民主制度还是在起作用,不能完全说政客们绑架选民。政客的背后是不同的利益群体,政客们不能达成一致是因为不同收入阶层之间的利益冲突和不愿妥协。 问题大家都很清楚,入不敷出,债务越来越多,要付的利息也越来越多。但是增加税收,减少开支具体的实施细节,涉及到每个人的利益,在选民中间没有广泛的共识。

民主党可以拿出来一个方案,共和党可以拿出一个方案,奥巴马可以拿出一个方案,我们这些闲人也可以一个人拿出一个方案,每个方案都有它的道理,但是把它们放在一起,无法自然而然地得到一个“最优决策”。事实上,这个理想中的“最优决策”根本就不存在。

政客们无不宣称自己的方案是最好的,最合理的,可以口若悬河地讲一大堆。这些说辞有利于大家理解问题及可能采取的对策,但不能构成对“最佳”的证明。一个还没有实施的想法而已。就算是开始实施了,批评的声音也不会消失。

民主的好处在于不同的人群都发出了自己的声音,使人能够看得每一种选择的利与弊。通过妥协和对话,产生一个能够勉强接受的结果。哪怕知道这个结果不是最符合自己的利益,不是自己最希望的结果。每一个人都希望在利益调整中受益,或是把损失降到最低限度。不斗上一番,经过多次的讨价还价,人们也不知道边界到底在什么地方。而之所以最后选择妥协,是因为他们有理性,他们认识到了拖下去的灾难性后果,妥协比坚持对自己更为有利。这不是什么最优方案,只是一个通过讨价还价,削来改去,不过于极端,大多数人可以接受的方案。

但是民主的问题也在这里显露出来,当不能达成共识的时候怎么办?需要不断地发出自己的声音,期望更多的人能了解自己的立场,以保证自己的利益在今后的方案文本能得到体现。同时需要随时了解问题的严重程度,准备在必要的时候做出妥协。再有,就是等待了。等大多数人都意识到不妥协将是一个很坏的选择。

一切会不会太晚,财政问题会不会变得不可收拾?象希腊那样。有可能的。不过,债务上限和自动开支削减方案的设立,已经为防止财政崩溃筑起了一些屏障。我对经济学界,言论自由,整个社会数据透明,政客们以及每个选民的理性抱有谨慎的乐观。

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-7 03:03:53

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 10:52 static/image/common/back.gif
原来欧洲也比香港澳门来的多。。。 我还以为俄国是最低的呢。汗。 米国白人1.84, 比我想象的高不少啊。 ...

加拿大白人也一样,他们已经开始有一种“责任感”,要生至少2-3个孩子,保持不至于发生白人绝后的事情。

tanis 发表于 2013-1-7 04:38:48

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-7 03:03 static/image/common/back.gif
加拿大白人也一样,他们已经开始有一种“责任感”,要生至少2-3个孩子,保持不至于发生白人绝后的事情。 ...

嗯~ 米国的魔门也很能生啊~ 我之前的同学,一个Ph。D阶段造人6个半;另一个造了4,第5个正着酝酿~

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-7 05:49:16

tanis 发表于 2013-1-6 14:38 static/image/common/back.gif
嗯~ 米国的魔门也很能生啊~ 我之前的同学,一个Ph。D阶段造人6个半;另一个造了4,第5个正着酝酿~ ...

摩门教的人不一样,要生7个才能升天堂。

tanis 发表于 2013-1-7 06:04:45

晨枫 发表于 2013-1-7 05:49 static/image/common/back.gif
摩门教的人不一样,要生7个才能升天堂。

这个倒是头一次知道。。。还有这样的硬性要求。

tangotango 发表于 2013-1-7 08:51:08

Dracula 发表于 2013-1-4 15:50 static/image/common/back.gif
国债上限需要不断提高本身很正常。假设国债占GDP的比例不变的话,随着GDP增长,或者通货膨胀,国债数额必然 ...

最奇怪的事美国的福利和西欧北欧国家比是很低的,人口老龄化程度也是最轻的,
为什么就不堪重负了? 西欧北欧国家不还活的好好的 国
债比例也没这么多(法国除外)?
页: 1 2 [3] 4
查看完整版本: 悬崖勒马……吗?