Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 118

Thread: Norway: Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

  1. #1

    Default Norway: Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

    We venture to the very heart of the hell that is Scandinavian socialism—and find out that it’s not so bad. Pricey, yes, but a good place to start and run a company. What exactly does that suggest about the link between taxes and entrepreneurship?

    [...]

    "The tax system is good—it's fair," he tells me. "What we're doing when we are paying taxes is buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product; it's the quality of the product." Dalmo likes the government's services, and he believes that he is paying a fair price.

    But there is precious little evidence to suggest that our low taxes have done much for entrepreneurs—or even for the economy as a whole. "It's actually quite hard to say how tax policy affects the economy," says Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan professor who served on the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan. Slemrod says there is no statistical evidence to prove that low taxes result in economic prosperity. Some of the most prosperous countries—for instance, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and, yes, Norway—also have some of the highest taxes. Norway, which in 2009 had the world's highest per-capita income, avoided the brunt of the financial crisis: From 2006 to 2009, its economy grew nearly 3 percent. The American economy grew less than one-tenth of a percent during the same period. Meanwhile, countries with some of the lowest taxes in Europe, like Ireland, Iceland, and Estonia, have suffered profoundly. The first two nearly went bankrupt; Estonia, the darling of antitax groups like the Cato Institute, currently has an unemployment rate of 16 percent. Its economy shrank 14 percent in 2009.

    Moreover, the typical arguments peddled by business groups and in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal— the idea, for instance, that George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 created economic growth—are problematic. The unemployment rate rose following the passage of both tax-cut packages, and economic growth during Bush's eight years in office badly lagged growth during the Clinton presidency, before the tax cuts were passed.

    And so the case of Norway—one of the most entrepreneurial, most heavily taxed countries in the world—should give us pause. What if we have been wrong about taxes? What if tax cuts are nothing like weapons or textbooks? What if they don't matter as much as we think they do?

    [...]

    The first thing I learned is that Norwegians don't think about taxes the way we do. Whereas most Americans see taxes as a burden, Norwegian entrepreneurs tend to see them as a purchase, an exchange of cash for services. "I look at it as a lifelong investment," says Davor Sutija, CEO of Thinfilm, a Norwegian start-up that is developing a low-cost version of the electronic tags retailers use to track merchandise.

    [...]

    This may help explain why entrepreneurship in Norway has thrived, even as it stagnates in the U.S. "The three things we as Americans worry about—education, retirement, and medical expenses—are things that Norwegians don't worry about," says Zoltan J. Acs, a professor at George Mason University and the chief economist for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Acs thinks the recession in the U.S. has intensified this disparity and is part of the reason America has slipped in the past few years. When the U.S. economy is booming, the absence of guaranteed health care isn't a big concern for aspiring founders, but with unemployment near double digits, would-be entrepreneurs are more cautious. "When the middle class is shrinking, the pool of entrepreneurs is shrinking," says Acs.

    [...]

    Although Nicolaisen considers herself a conservative, she told me the issue that most animates her is poverty, not taxes. "Yeah, the wealth tax is a problem," she says. "But you have to make a choice. You can live in the Cayman Islands and pay no tax. But I don't want to live in the Cayman Islands. To live in Norway, you have to do what you have to. I think it's worth it."

    [...]

    I visited Moods of Norway's offices on my last day in Norway and chatted with Flo and his co-founders, Simen Staalnacke and Peder Børresen. The three were able to start their company, which makes fashionable sportswear and suits, largely thanks to the beneficence of the Norwegian socialist system. In 2004, they received a $20,000 start-up grant from the Norwegian equivalent of the Small Business Administration. Staalnacke and Børresen enrolled in a local college, because doing so meant the government would cover most of their living expenses. This may be why, when I ask the three founders if they might become Cypriots anytime soon, they protest. "No, no, no," says Børresen. "We've received a lot from Norway and Norwegian society. Giving back is not a problem."

    [...]

    Holte's American subsidiary pays annual health care premiums that make his head spin—more than $23,000 per employee for a family plan—and that make the cost of employing a software developer in the United States substantially higher than it is in Norway, even after taxes. (For a full breakdown, see "Making Payroll.") Holte is no pinko—he finds many aspects of Norwegian socialism problematic, particularly regulations about hiring and firing—but when he looks at the costs and benefits of taxes in each country, he sees no contest. Norway is worth the cost.

    Of course, that's only half the question when it comes to taxes. The other, more divisive question is, What is fair? Is it right to make rich people pay more than poor people? Would paying a greater percentage of our income for more government services make us less free? "I'd rather be in the U.S., where you can enjoy the fruit of your labor, rather than a country like Norway, where your hard work is confiscated by the government," says Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates for lower taxes.

    These are important moral issues, but, in America, they are often the only ones we are willing to consider. We have, as Holte suggests, become religious about economic policy. We are unable or unwilling to make the kind of cool-headed calculations about costs and benefits that I saw in Norway. "There's a disconnect in the way people think about paying taxes and funding public services that's worse here than in any other country," says Donald Bruce, a tax economist at the University of Tennessee. "We refuse to believe that taxes can be used for anything productive. But then we say, 'Stay out of my Social Security. And my Medicare. And don't cut defense or national parks.' "

    [...]

    When lawmakers inevitably take up these issues, it's a sure thing that those who oppose raising revenue through tax hikes will make the argument that higher taxes will hurt entrepreneurs. They will make it sound as if even a modest tax increase would represent a death knell for American business. But the case of Norway suggests that Americans should view these arguments with skepticism—and that American entrepreneurs could stand to be less dogmatic about the role of government in society.


    Snippets from each page. Continued http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201...socialism.html

  2. #2
    Norway also has a ridiculous amount of oil, which allows them to provide free college education (and even to pay for Norwegians to get an education in other countries) and to provide a more generous social welfare system without needing to cut back elsewhere.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    Is that your take-away from the whole piece, Loki?

    Not all the Scandinavian nations have oil, but similar attitudes toward taxation---buying a good quality product from their governments.

  4. #4
    My take from the piece is every political science analysis I've seen involving Norway had the country as an outlier. Every Scandinavian nation not named Norway is cutting down on the size of their welfare state. I'll also note that there's a strong relationship between ethnic homogeneity and public good provision (on both a national and city level). Norway is far less diverse than America.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    There's more to reading an article on tax attitudes than political science analysis, you know. Yes, they're a small oil-rich nation that's mostly homogenous, ethnically and culturally. Yet the same attitudes toward public good, and (possibly) accepting higher taxes, can also be found in US states with lots of Norwegians and Swedes. Minnesota comes to mind.

    As noted in the article, start-ups in the US face hurdles other places don't. We're like 50 nations, all with different laws, varying quality of public education, and health insurance costs employers have to figure out. Those things end up hurting business, not helping.

  6. #6
    But it's a relevant point -- having a massive spigot of oil money, generous benefits and a small population may make it theoretically easy to "start a company". But it also means the risks of failure are very low, and so are the incentives for succeeding.

    No one is pretending there are no jobs or prosperity in Norway. But the ability of one dude to start a company in the most obvious local mineral extraction doesn't mean the place is "good" for startups. I would be more convinced if Norway had produced a bevy of multinational companies that saw good success outside of Norway. But the largest companies in Norway are oil companies and the local operations of non-Norwegian multinationals.

  7. #7
    Sounds like you didn't read the whole article.

  8. #8
    Um, I read most of it. Is there a big part I missed?

  9. #9
    "But the ability of one dude to start a company in the most obvious local mineral extraction doesn't mean the place is "good" for startups."

    Did you miss the interviews with the multi-million dollar entrepeneurs, even the ones branching into the US?

  10. #10
    Yes, they had one example of a company expanding into the US...surrounded by a discussion of how the Norse asset taxes and the US regulatory environment are bad.

    So far these are things that most economic conservatives would agree with.

  11. #11
    They interviewed more than "one guy", and they all shared the same attitude toward taxes (even the wealth tax). That it's a "social good" they purchase, which makes their society a pleasant place to live, raise families, AND easier to start new companies. They can focus on their business basics, because education / health care / retirement are baked in the cake.

  12. #12
    From the posted comments to this article, it struck me how similar it sounds to this forum:

    It is completely absurd to compare Norway to the US. They have 5 million folks, most of whom (I assume) are responsible indiviudals. We hav 300+ million with probably a couple of million who would simply suck the system dry if they could. We have far too many lazy people here who don't want to work, and in a socialist society, they would flourish - waiting with glee each month for their checks and other free perks to arrive. Sorry, bad comparison.

    Followed by:



    Nonsense. My husband is Swedish and I am of Swedish descent and I can tell you firsthand, there are lazy people everywhere and Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. are no exception. The Scandinavians have plenty of them, but they are tolerated...not rewarded. They receive enough support to survive but not thrive. In America we call that "rewarding" people by helping them to live in low grade housing with enough food and reasonable healthcare and guaranteed education for those who are capable.

    The alternative is what we do here... let them live on the streets where we have to step over them, where they beg food or steal to survive, where they defecate and urinate in public areas because no one wants them in their establishments... there they drink or do drugs to cope with their mental and physical afflictions (and, of course, cause themselves more pain and problems). We treat those who have trouble coping or getting established in society as human waste. And even worse, we doom their children to a similar fate in many cases by blaming them for circumstances they were born into (which praising those who were born with every possible advantage and performed reasonably well). As a society we condemn those without means to get an education as substandard and praise only those few who are so superlative they dig themselves out of that vast wasteland of hopelessness.

    The Scandinavian system offers an out to people who struggle in life if they pull themselves together... and their children always have the opportunity to go to decent schools all the way through PhDs if they have the ability and the discipline. Money is not a prerequisite for an advanced education (nor is super-achiever status that wins a few brilliant disadvantaged youths in the US a scholarship and a ticket out of hopelessness).

    Certainly some people might see the Scandinavian system as a reward for sloth, but the fact is that these people are not abandoned to become more of a burden on society... they have the opportunity right up until they die to pull themselves together and become productive members of society. Their innocent children always have a path to success and productivity and a much improved life.

    It amuses me... NO, IT SADDENS ME... that we, as Americans, crow about the American Dream and call ourselves the Land of Opportunity when clearly we have allowed that promise to evaporate in our celebration of greed and selfishness and pursuit of extreme personal wealth no matter who gets stepped on to achieve it. I'm 57 now and when I was younger it was NOT like this... this is new... this is scary... this is a return to the class system that America was founded to escape.


    Difference being that in this forum, "anecdotes" like those would probably be met with......[citation needed], tangents about economies of scale, or defining Lazy, or SSSSocialism.


  13. #13
    A) The Scandinavians are very generous to the unemployed. They don't just have "enough to survive".
    B) Norway has lots of oil, which allows it to have free universities and a generous welfare state without needing to raise taxes.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    How much is enough to survive? Do we have to ensure that that cannot include things such as cigarettes and alcohol? If so, why?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    How much is enough to survive? Do we have to ensure that that cannot include things such as cigarettes and alcohol? If so, why?
    Wants versus needs?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    How much is enough to survive? Do we have to ensure that that cannot include things such as cigarettes and alcohol? If so, why?
    http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/une...mployment.html

    http://www.nav.no/English/Social+security/190043.cms

    We're talking about people getting nearly as much not to work as to work.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Wants versus needs?
    I hate to be a small child, but why?

    Also!

    Should we make sure they only get the lowest grade of toilet tissue, for example? They don't need the stuff that doesn't tear the anus.

    Do we interfere with their diet? A person only needs so much, and in particular I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to make some kind of vitaminated porridge-gruel thing, we wouldn't even need to give them food stamps, just a pound of gruel a day! Needs satisfied, wants denied! What's the threshold where the whole exercise becomes completely irrational and inane?

    Do we re-start poor houses? You don't need a room of your own, or your own toilet, or anything like that.

    Should we castrate them? This is a good idea according to such societal planners such as Lewkowski; you get food stamps if you get snipped. No one needs to have kids, Hell, vice versa!

    Do people need access to political information? Is this something we should subsidize?

    Special poor person payphones that you can only use so many times a month?

    Do we make them fill out humiliating paperwork month after month? How much are we willing to invest in bureaucracy just for the sake of adding discomfort to the system? No one needs dignity, or to be treated like a human being, and humiliating them at every turn's just one more incentive for them to finally start tugging at their boot straps.

    And who needs an education? You can read and write, do basic arithmetic, you've got the tools to become a billionaire! Oh yeah!
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    A) The Scandinavians are very generous to the unemployed. They don't just have "enough to survive".
    Their unemployment rate is less than 4%. Are they paying people to dig ditches and fill them? I don't think so.

    B) Norway has lots of oil, which allows it to have free universities and a generous welfare state without needing to raise taxes.
    What's Finland and Sweden "got", if they don't have oil? How about Lichtenstein or Monaco?

    The US has oil, natural gas, coal, corn, wheat, soy, fowl, dairy, meat, ocean seafood, fish farms, rich forests, solar deserts, fresh water rivers, saltwater oceans, mountains and basins, blah blah blah. We have enough natural resources we export them. We have enough energy we export that, too. We've even exported our education, expertise, innovation, and labor.

    What we don't have is an evolving attitude toward taxes. We don't see taxes as purchasing a good or service that's more efficient when governments are involved. Instead---we get piece-meal state-by-state variances full of redundancy and inefficiencies. We blame the taxation itself instead of the flawed administration or delivery of public services.

    Some even go practically Revolutionary Colonial and anti-King George in these matters. That'd be the Palin and Tea Party contradictory variables.

    Palin, whose Down Syndrome baby wouldn't stand a chance without tax payers helping his educational-physical-social special needs. Palin couldn't have run as a VP candidate, or had the time to write her books, if she'd been raising that boy on Medicaid or Medicare Disability. If she'd been like any other Average Joe the Plumber, her employer insurance would have hit a lifetime max long ago, forcing her onto that evil gummint assistance. The same assistance she wants to deny for other's children. Or elderly parents. Simply because it comes from the national pool.

    Tea Party, which is predominantly white middle-class people, heavier on the over age 50 crowd demographically. Same people who say "Obamacare" is SSSocialism. But don't touch their Medicare or Social Security! Quite a disconnect there, about what's bad about taxes yet good for society.

    In short, that's what I found as food for thought in this article about Norwegian entrepeneurs. And how Americans have taken a stubborn anti-taxation posture, almost like a religious dogma, even when the premise can be falsified.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I hate to be a small child, but why?
    Because matter is finite?

    Also!

    Should we make sure they only get the lowest grade of toilet tissue, for example? They don't need the stuff that doesn't tear the anus.

    Do we interfere with their diet? A person only needs so much, and in particular I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to make some kind of vitaminated porridge-gruel thing, we wouldn't even need to give them food stamps, just a pound of gruel a day! Needs satisfied, wants denied! What's the threshold where the whole exercise becomes completely irrational and inane?

    Do we re-start poor houses? You don't need a room of your own, or your own toilet, or anything like that.

    Should we castrate them? This is a good idea according to such societal planners such as Lewkowski; you get food stamps if you get snipped. No one needs to have kids, Hell, vice versa!

    Do people need access to political information? Is this something we should subsidize?

    Special poor person payphones that you can only use so many times a month?

    Do we make them fill out humiliating paperwork month after month? How much are we willing to invest in bureaucracy just for the sake of adding discomfort to the system? No one needs dignity, or to be treated like a human being, and humiliating them at every turn's just one more incentive for them to finally start tugging at their boot straps.

    And who needs an education? You can read and write, do basic arithmetic, you've got the tools to become a billionaire! Oh yeah!
    In my book "we," being society, shouldn't be forced to meet any wants, or needs. If you choose to help others, help them how you see fit. If you want a homeless man to have a drink and a smoke, take him out to a bar, buy him a beer, and let him bum some cigarettes. If you want him to have a decent meal, volunteer at a food pantry. If you want to donate a third of your earnings to make sure that no one in your neighborhood ever has to deal with single ply toilet paper again, more power to you.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/une...mployment.html

    http://www.nav.no/English/Social+security/190043.cms

    We're talking about people getting nearly as much not to work as to work.
    Again, how much bureaucracy do you want to fund to make sure they survive but in major discomfort? How do you propose regulating their diet and toilet tissue purchases to keep tobacco and alcohol out of their hands? People making the lowest wages live in a moderate amount of discomfort, and the gap between the rich income brackets and the poor income brackets is increasing constantly. Do we need a minimum of government machinery to ensure that the unworking poor are substantially penalized compared to the poorest working people? Adjusting it on say a two-year basis to account for the growing wealth disparity. Can't we just slap them in a jail-house and call it a day!

    We can't! Scandinavian prisoners aren't huge, blooming messes of anal rape and wanton violence! People live comfortably in jail! It's a world gone topsy-turvy! People aren't pissing and shitting on the streets, dying of exposure, it's all just so unfair!

    Right?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Because matter is finite?


    In my book "we," being society, shouldn't be forced to meet any wants, or needs. If you choose to help others, help them how you see fit. If you want a homeless man to have a drink and a smoke, take him out to a bar, buy him a beer, and let him bum some cigarettes. If you want him to have a decent meal, volunteer at a food pantry. If you want to donate a third of your earnings to make sure that no one in your neighborhood ever has to deal with single ply toilet paper again, more power to you.
    That's simply theoretical or philosophical noise. A better question might be---what kind of society do you want to live in?

    Are you content to see homeless people, tent cities, beggars, hungry children, <people sneaking toothpaste out of a drug store just to be shot in the back by the merchant (LEWK)>---black market undergrounds for sex slavery, elicit drug or weapons trading, mercenaries....on an on....things desperate people do? That just feeds the organized mob mentality, and makes it lucrative to exploit people when they're down.

    The US is good at ignoring social problems, until it means millions of people living in desperation, sometimes turning to crime just to live. Then we feed billions of dollars into police enforcement and prisons. It's never made sense to me why those billions couldn't find bi-partisan support when those kids are young, making their lives and futures better when they're young. Instead of spending those dollars on the end-game, when it's much harder and more expensive to catch or contain criminals

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Because matter is finite?
    Used in a different context, this arguments gets you branded with the label of Malthusian fallacy, but somehow it's a good argument for poor people porridge?

    Money doesn't correlate to matter anywhere near linearly, but if the top one percent of income earners earn millions of times more money than, say, the lowest 10 % of income earners, shouldn't it suggest that that money corresponds with something tangible? A 3000 dollar bottle of scotch won't feed a family, I grant you that, but up to some limit, especially in developed industrial nations, that 3000 dollars should feed people just as well as buy scotch, right? If we can afford a massive industrial complex devoted to crafting smaller and smaller iPods, we can't be anywhere near the point of material need where cigarettes and alcohol for the poor would doom nations to collapse. Can we? Who the Fuck decided that was a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    In my book "we," being society, shouldn't be forced to meet any wants, or needs. If you choose to help others, help them how you see fit. If you want a homeless man to have a drink and a smoke, take him out to a bar, buy him a beer, and let him bum some cigarettes. If you want him to have a decent meal, volunteer at a food pantry. If you want to donate a third of your earnings to make sure that no one in your neighborhood ever has to deal with single ply toilet paper again, more power to you.
    Government men with their guns stealing your money, right, right. What's amusing is that this idea is argued for in good faith with a straight face in a thread whose premise was that American culture has a weird and arguably harmful attitude to taxation.

    If the government can't force money out of people, or say regulate what kind of chemicals industries are allowed to put into food and medicine, how would society operate? Instead of paying taxes, I spend n hours a month investigating which charities are most efficient at helping people out of homelessness and into a life of grain alcohol and tobacco, I spend n hours a month investigating which foods have poisons and hormones in them, I spend n hours a month at work (with some amount of desperation, mind you, because getting fired won't mean less access to alcohol, it means a chance of dying of exposure if I worship the wrong gods, or whatever), I spend n hours a month enjoying the fruits of my labour in the form of alcohol and tobacco I earned with the sweat of my brow, and...Learn to do without sleep? Pay private agencies to do my research for me? Is my freedom to eat hormone-laden bananas worth all this hassle?

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that the US government has failed you on several of these areas. Your politicians can be legally bribed into harmful decisions that lead to trampled rights and human misery. I would ask how much of this government inefficiency and outright failure is a result of a culture so obsessed with seeing taxes as government thugs storming people's houses, taking the last potatoes out of the poor man's hand at gunpoint. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. Norway has oil, the US is incredibly wealthy in material terms. Norwegians have their wages reduced at gun-point to let unemployed people get drunk and smoke cigarettes. I would argue that an average Norwegian is happier and healthier than the residents of Libertopia, fearing death from exposure and researching which bananas have the least cow hormones, or whatever. But their happiness is false, because of the government thugs.

    Really?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  23. #23
    Give me liberty or give me death.

    In the American 21st century that can translate into Give me death by liberty.

    A totally freeee and unencumbered Individual can check out of society, paying minimal taxes. That also means a sort of living off-grid. Not connecting to ANY public utility that has tax payer subsidy. That would include limited information and education. Forsaking pretty much anything new, in favor of....old books and kerosene lanterns? Also means not availing one's self to modern medicine or transportation.

    Pretty hard to drive yourself on the (federally funded) roads, to get (federally funded) emergency Hospital care for your ruptured appendix (that you read about on the internet), let alone calling (tax payer funded) 911 when making that self-diagnosis. Your doctors (with their subsidized educations) may do surgery, and send you a bill (using the federal Postal service). What they do (funded by R & D federal grants) saves your life. Prescriptions (R & D funded by federal dollars) may not be affordable without insurance. Tax dollars are used in every step along the way, just so you don't die from your appendix. (An organ we still haven't figured out, BTW)

    Which subsidized step would you remove?

    After it's all said and done, nobody could afford pay to those costs if they weren't pooled and shared into society at large.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Money doesn't correlate to matter anywhere near linearly, but if the top one percent of income earners earn millions of times more money than, say, the lowest 10 % of income earners, shouldn't it suggest that that money corresponds with something tangible?
    Yes.

    Government men with their guns stealing your money, right, right. What's amusing is that this idea is argued for in good faith with a straight face in a thread whose premise was that American culture has a weird and arguably harmful attitude to taxation.
    Exactly.

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that the US government has failed you on several of these areas. Your politicians can be legally bribed into harmful decisions that lead to trampled rights and human misery. I would ask how much of this government inefficiency and outright failure is a result of a culture so obsessed with seeing taxes as government thugs storming people's houses, taking the last potatoes out of the poor man's hand at gunpoint. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. [...]

    Really?
    Pretty much. Quoted from the article:

    "I'd rather be in the U.S., where you can enjoy the fruit of your labor, rather than a country like Norway, where your hard work is confiscated by the government," says Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates for lower taxes.
    This is the kind of rhetoric and political propaganda common in the US. A black and white option---taxation means CONFISCATING the fruits of our labor---and that automatically translates to less personal FREEDOM. ???

    They should go farther in defining those freeeedoms and what that means, in context. Akin to the "fuck you, I got mine"? Where millionaires and billionaires care more about their third home than any homeless person? Their vintage car collection is more important than public transportation? Their cosmetic face lift is more valuable than babies having cleft lip/palate repair?

    Sure, our government has failed on many levels. Why wouldn't it, when the general attitude is that our taxes doesn't purchase anything valuable, and poor people should just have stronger boot straps?

  25. #25
    Article is BS as it ignores the massive oil revenues Norway gets.

  26. #26
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    In my book "we," being society, shouldn't be forced to meet any wants, or needs. If you choose to help others, help them how you see fit. If you want a homeless man to have a drink and a smoke, take him out to a bar, buy him a beer, and let him bum some cigarettes. If you want him to have a decent meal, volunteer at a food pantry. If you want to donate a third of your earnings to make sure that no one in your neighborhood ever has to deal with single ply toilet paper again, more power to you.
    Been there, done that.

    It's called the "Dark Ages" in Europe.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  27. #27

  28. #28
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Bullshit
    Sorry, but that's what he's ultimately proposing. A return to medieval social structures.

    Incidentally, this particular tidbit:

    In my book "we," being society, shouldn't be forced to meet any wants, or needs.
    also means:
    No public streets. No police. No fire brigade. No public schools...
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  29. #29
    While even I wouldn't go as far as what he's propose, the Medieval age had infinitely more differences besides solely what he's proposing.

    But why your claim is BS is the fact that the Dark Ages typically refer to the 5th to 16th Centuries AD and is a phrase first coined in 1602 - after the Dark Ages were considered to have ended already with the Renaissance. Modern welfare dates back no further than the 1930's and arguably after WWII.

    Clearly there are differences between rolling back to 1929 and rolling back to 1429. You might legitimately what he's talking about as Dickensian, but Dickens lived in the 19th Century, not the Dark Ages.

  30. #30
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    While even I wouldn't go as far as what he's propose, the Medieval age had infinitely more differences besides solely what he's proposing.

    But why your claim is BS is the fact that the Dark Ages typically refer to the 5th to 16th Centuries AD and is a phrase first coined in 1602 - after the Dark Ages were considered to have ended already with the Renaissance. Modern welfare dates back no further than the 1930's and arguably after WWII.

    Clearly there are differences between rolling back to 1929 and rolling back to 1429. You might legitimately what he's talking about as Dickensian, but Dickens lived in the 19th Century, not the Dark Ages.
    Actually, he's going even back further with police, fire brigades and any other needs not being necessary, y'know? Stone Age, maybe? You do realize that he's not talking exclusively about welfare but about any and all needs?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •