Only that's not a major contributing factor to our current dilema. Remember how you brought up supply and demand in another thread? Well, it's more appropriate here since our biggest problem now is demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Only that's not a major contributing factor to our current dilema. Remember how you brought up supply and demand in another thread? Well, it's more appropriate here since our biggest problem now is demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sigh..we wouldn't be having these circular arguments if we just simplified the tax code...(In the USA)
But if that was the case, then the politicians would not be able to divide us like this.
The Irish are saying the same thing, and scratching their heads. How could it go so horribly wrong? They have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Sounded simple, didn't it --- make it cheap to build business there, and they will come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
In the Soviet Union, there was little incentive for anyone to work (more than was necessary to keep superiors off your tail). The main problem facing the Nordic countries is that we live in a more complex world, where people's "needs" keep on increasing exponentially, while the ability to provide for those needs with high taxation is limited by unprecedented levels of international competition. Then there's the demographics and immigration issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
People who give money to the state are going to want a lower level of taxation than people who get money from the state. I don't see what you find surprising about that. My point was that you refused to acknowledge the real trade-off between current and future taxation. The argument isn't over whether we should fund civilization; it's how much we're willing to hamper progress in the future in order to guarantee civilization today.
How about you show us the ideal wealth distribution that will not hamper progress and at the same time provide civilization?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In no way, shape or form am I surprised, Low-key. I know all about the heinousness of humanity, as exemplified by Captain Garbage.
You frame the problem of the Nordic nations in good accordance to your creed, namely that the people are too dim to see the reality of the world. The reality, of course, is different from the one you paint, where foreign powers and TAX-HAVENS work towards our disfavor. Their work flies right up the face of human decency but who cares so long as you can make money?
I also wholly reject your idea that "progress" can only be had in the absence of taxation. Real grass-roots development is not had in a corporate environment, although you might want to defer to mister Garbage-Man about this.
Any level of taxation will hamper progress in the future. It's up to society to determine what level is necessary to meet its current needs.
Care to define "grass-roots development"? Also, I didn't say progress can't be had with taxation; I said progress is hampered by taxation. Let's say your tax policy leads to a 20% lower GDP than you would otherwise have. That means, that in the future, you have 20% less income to tax. I don't see which part of that is hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
And majority rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion past this point right here, you'll find more sympathy and supportive posts from Captain Garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Then stop whining about voters in the 90th percentile telling the 10th percentile what is their fair share contribution to civil society.Quote:
It's up to society to determine what level is necessary to meet its current needs.
Or we could dissect the Long Tail instead of just the head of the beast.Quote:
Care to define "grass-roots development"? Also, I didn't say progress can't be had with taxation; I said progress is hampered by taxation. Let's say your tax policy leads to a 20% lower GDP than you would otherwise have. That means, that in the future, you have 20% less income to tax. I don't see which part of that is hard to understand.
Do you accept that every increase in the tax rate leads to a decrease in gross national income? If not, how do you think people and firms react to higher taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'm not a freshman student for you to ravish, Low-key. They will react in accordance to their faith and creed as I stated in a post somewhere in this thread. The goal of Captain Garbage and yourself is to make them react in the worst way possible. Okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Apparently to be rational one has to be a classical liberal. Interesting assumption there. I'll make it even simpler for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Let's say people have two alternatives: work and leisure. Each person values those two things differently (i.e. the average Finn is going value leisure more than the average American). The more a person has of something, the less they value an additional unit of it. For example, if you have 0 ice creams, the first ice cream will matter more to you than if you had 10 ice creams and you were offered an eleventh.
The same applies to work and leisure. The more you earn, the less earning more means to you. Someone earning $100k a year is less likely to turn up to work to earn an extra $10 than someone earning $10k. As taxes increase, the amount you receive from working an additional work decrease. The less you earn from that extra hour, the more you'd prefer an extra hour of leisure (or whatever it is you do when you don't work) to an hour of work. That means that for every increase in taxes, you'd choose to work slightly less and to enjoy yourself slightly more. The only time you wouldn't see this relationship is at very low income levels, where people have to work more just to achieve a subsistence level.
Now which part of this do you disagree with? Note that I made no assumption about people being greedy or preferring money to other activities. I simply assume that people place a value on money and on leisure, and that they pursue the activity they value more at any given time period.
Paragraphs. Indentation. Professor. :donkey:
Better. But you've also conflated values, without explanation. Work and Leisure. Finn and American. (Ice cream is a horrible example of value, you know.)
You're also assuming a person earning $100,000 pares their work units down to $10 units like an earner of $10,000 might.
You're also mistaking causation with correlation, when it comes to earnings-for-work, and income taxes. It doesn't do much good to compare hourly wage earners with salaried professionals. Not in the context you intend, anyway.
As usual, your response entirely misses the point and makes no sense. You ignore the logic of the argument and zoom in on the clarifying examples. You miss the forest for the trees. Nothing you mention is actually relevant to the underlying argument.
:donkey: As usual, you dismiss, with prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You wrote a missive to Nessus about values of work and making money, with the underlying assumption that both work and making money can be "undone" by taxes alone. That's not how the human being works, or how the human brain analyzes their work, or forms their total work ethic.
It's also not how nations design or implement tax structures, or how international corporations decide where their HQ are based. If it were, then every large corporation would be based in China.
Nessus, when you sober up or get some sleep, I'm curious what you define as progress. At the civilization-level. And how it's attainable. Something without the fatalistic "we're all fucked so whatever" would be interesting, I'm just curious if you are cynical, optimistic or a nihilist.
Now that's just shitty, really. Insinuating that Nessie was either drunk or tired in her earlier posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As far as I can tell, she's living in the civilized society, Finland. Highest rated public education in the world. Great public health care by all standard metrics. High taxes, yes. But Finland obviously gets what they've paid for: a progressive and civilized nation that isn't deep into debt (like the US or the rest of Europe); combining capitalism with socialism and seeing good results. Maybe their gummint actually works for their people, and not the other way around. We should all be so fortunate.
:donkey:
Wow, three non sequiturs in one paragraph. Impressive. Have you considered thinking about what your main argument is for a minute before writing anything that comes to your head?
In the other thread Nessus mentioned she was starting a night of drinking. And it's really late over there. I don't judge either of that. I just detected a particular crankiness I was just mentioning it as a friendly poke. But I was asking a real question.
I'd also like to know what "grass-roots development" is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We just won't know, until you tell us exactly what an "expert" is, Doctor Loki. After all, the main public is so damn dumb! Just look at all the idiotic comments on blogs and news sources. Before ya know it, forums will have ignorant lay people posting their opinions and challenging experts like you. Help us Dr. Loki, before it's too late!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
#12.
Yes, rule 12. Posting while drinking. Ditto for Dread. What's your point?
If you can't win an argument against a lay person drinking, without calling #12, then what kind of academic expert are you?
Ah, you're a score keeper! (Does your girl friend know this?) The things I said to munchkin (in General Chat) still stand. She was complaining about being broke, totally dependent, disabled, and non-functional due to her drinking habits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm not broke, dependent, disabled, or non-functional due to my drinking habits. But you're not an expert in those areas anyway. Are you an expert in any area, really?
:popcorn:
For the record, I don't think the drunk reference was mean or unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I've moved away from the we're all fucked so whatever-mentality along with my mental health improvement, so.
Progress is tricky to define! GeeGee pointed out the recent Newsweek proclamation about how great Finland is. I think I'd agree with a lot of their ranking criteria. Progress is moving out of sustenance-farming, educating everyone to understand a polynomial equation and the Hundred Years War, and helping them understand the importance of working together towards the next generation. It all sounds so wishy-washy when the alternative ideology offers untold riches just for you if you work it just right, but I think mr Cohen was correct about our level of cognizance on that front.
Progress is science, not iPods. Progress is good education and school lunches for all, not billion-dollar bonuses for heads of failing corporations.
I want to be optimistic, but I'm nihilistic about our chances of attaining it. People suck.
I probably didn't answer your question, but I don't think we speak the same language, so there we go.
Well, I recall it was the garbage man who said---what we say while drunk isn't different in content than what we'd say sober---just different in style.
Progress should mean progress for all, not at the expense of a few. Uber-wealthy should realize just how bad their daily life might be, if they have to hire private security manning the walls around their world, to keep the hungry or angry masses out. The Wealthy should connect their personal wealth to the prosperity of their workers. Wealth should mean more than personal prosperity, and include a degree of national pride, and even national security.
I just read an interesting article in the Spiegel about the development of microcredits in India. The "inventor" of the microcredits intended it as a tool for development of poor areas after he had seen how small amounts of money could enable people to create a job. Which means, it's a risky business of lending, primarily intended as a social tool, still managing to yield a small profit, though.
Enter capitalism and it all goes pear shaped due to the banks promising massive profits to their investors and them not actually caring if the borrowers actually invest it into creating a job.
Anyone care to tell me how capitalism made the world a better place in this instance?
Don't bother, they'll just post pictures of Joe Stalin at you. The disciples of the Smith Faith cannot be reasoned with. :(