Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are basically stating that taxes can never "take from the poor and give to the rich". That statement is obviously wrong and I doubt you will even attempt to defend it.
What the article basically states is that in America, we have a more progressive tax system, but the money isn't being transferred directly to the poor. In that sense, in America the wealthy are being taxed for the benefit of the wealthy.
In the social-democracies of Europe it is the reverse. The poor are being taxed for the benefit of the poor.
This is obviously an oversimplification but that is the basic point it is trying to get across.
You could look at it like this. In America, money from taxes mostly goes to very well-paid government officials, the military, and government contractors. Thus in America, the rich employed in private business are being taxed to pay for the rich who earn their living from government spending. In Europe, the working poor are being taxed to create safety-nets for the poor who can't work.
As I wrote before, the reason we have public roads is a matter of convenience and quality. My objection to public roads was a matter of asking the questions "Who really pays for the roads?", "Who really benefits from the roads?", and "What are the psychological and economic effects caused by their existence?".
Let use remember this quote from that article for reference, "What's going on here? Basically, all of the progressivity of our fellow developed nations' welfare states comes on the spending side. They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact. We, by contrast, tax progressively, and then spread the money around in a less progressive fashion."
When we look at financing for roads, people with lower incomes contribute far more as a percentage of their income to the cost of roads than the wealthy do. Local roads are largely financed through the property taxes that the poor also pay as part of their rent, but the poor may not even drive. If they do, they don't drive nearly as often. On top of that, the poor usually drive vehicles with worse average MPG's, and are less likely to drive at high speeds on highways(where MPG is best). On top of that, in recent years the wealthy have been increasingly driving electric or hybrid plug-in cars, whose "fuel"(IE electricity) isn't being taxed like gasoline gets taxed for the purpose of maintaining the roads.
Don't even get me started on the regressivity of the "car insurance mandate". That for most of the poor, it costs more to keep insurance on your car per year than the car you drive is even worth. Car insurance for me is the single largest expense on my car by a huge margin because I don't drive often.
If we come to the next question about "Who benefits?". I am not arguing that the poor don't benefit from roads, but simply that the benefits to the poor aren't the immediate purpose for the existence of public roads. The real purpose of public roads is to promote "trade", or more specifically to create "economic growth". The reason why mass transit is largely ignored, is because it doesn't really promote economic growth in the way that roads do. Basically, decisions regarding transportation always devolve to questions of economics, and has nothing to do with the poor, or about cost, or about quality of life, or anything else.
And since public roads are about economics, not people. Then as I wrote before, the biggest beneficiaries of public roads are international corporations such as Wal-mart and Exxon. Not the guy working minimum wage and who is just trying to keep a roof over his head. You could make an argument that the "poor" might actually be collectively better off if public roads were to disappear.
If we go to the last question, "What are the psychological and economic effects of public roads?". If you have to pay for something every single time you use it, you are less likely to use it. If you pay a one-time fee and can use something as much as you want with no additional cost, you are much more likely to use it. It is basically the problem with the "buffet". When I eat dinner where I have to pay for every single item I eat, I tend to eat less. When I go to a buffet where there is no additional cost to eating more, I'll eat until I'm sick.
In the case of roads, by making roads "free to use", you are effectively encouraging people to use them as much as possible. While it is true that gas costs money and is taxed, there is very little relationship between how much someone pays in taxes, and the relative cost imposed by their use of the roads. This encourages people to drive more, and by driving more they use more fuel(creating a slew of geo-political, and environmental problems).
If all roads were privatized, the relative cost of roads for an individual would better reflect the actual cost of their use of that road. Which should discourage some drivers, and actually lower the cost to drive for others. Between the cost of my insurance and "tag", I have to pay nearly $1,000 a year, even if I was to only drive my car once a month.
At one point I thought about buying two vehicles. My primary vehicle being a truck to haul stuff in, and a small car to get good gas mileage in. After breaking down how much it would cost just to keep the small car on the road per year(in just insurance + tag) vs how much I would actually drive it. I couldn't save any money by driving the high mileage car, and I can't get rid of the truck.
Look at it like this, if you had to pay even $600 a year for insurance and a tag(Lets say $40 a month for insurance plus tag), and gas was $3.20 per gallon. Then it costs $160 to drive 1,000 miles at 20 mpg. If you drive a car that got 40 mpg, it would reduce your cost per 1,000 miles to $80. To offset the cost of just insurance and tags, you would have to drive the second car about 8,000 miles a year. And that is only to break even(not including the cost to purchase and maintain that car).
Thus, instead of me having two cars so I can use less fuel. It makes me sense for me to just drive my low MPG vehicle more miles and use more fuel.
The point is, the system we have now is absolutely terrible. Those on the political left would help the poor, the environment, and punish corporations a lot more by abolishing all public roads. If there was ever a plan for vastly expanding the use of efficient railroads for transportation, abolishing public roads would be it(I used to work for an affiliate of BNSF railroad, I have given this issue a lot of thought).
So you want to pay a toll just to pick up a gallon of milk on the corner? That's basically what you're asking for. lol
You are basically stating that taxes can never "take from the poor and give to the rich". That statement is obviously wrong and I doubt you will even attempt to defend it.
No, what I am "basically saying" is that you have no idea what income redistribution is, yet you chose to voice your opinion. When you tax the poor to give to the rich your are NOT redistributing any wealth as the rich have already been rich and the poor - poor. Income redistribution takes place when you take form the rich and give to the poor. That's how it is being done in Europe. I am not sure about Texas. lol
Just to make sure you are aware - Europe has much less of income inequality than the US.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-13-2014 at 07:15 PM..
Why shouldn't we have it in the US? It would make this country much more prosperous. The Nordic Model is the best example of a mixed economy thus far. Why Americans oppose it? I have no idea.
Because we're not Nordic?
I'm mostly Scandinavian and would not be opposed to having a similar system if we in America were more homogeneous (ethnically, racially, culturally), but we are not and I do not want my tax dollars going to alien cultures and peoples who are so unlike minded as me.
I'm mostly Scandinavian and would not be opposed to having a similar system if we in America were more homogeneous (ethnically, racially, culturally), but we are not and I do not want my tax dollars going to alien cultures and peoples who are so unlike minded as me.
It will never happen!
We had a thing called slavery, that will be used for centuries as a crutch to always be the victim.
Now you also have the native North Americans, wanting their land back.
They can do it in places like Sweden because they are (until recently) basically a homogeneous group of people with like-minded backgrounds and views.
This will all change though as it already is in places like Malmo where they are letting alien third-worlders into their land and now asking for more and more.
Similarly in the US this is happening via the invasions of the hordes from the South.
No, what I am "basically saying" is that you have no idea what income redistribution is, yet you chose to voice your opinion. When you tax the poor to give to the rich your are NOT redistributing any wealth as the rich have already been rich and the poor - poor. Income redistribution takes place when you take form the rich and give to the poor. That's how it is being done in Europe. I am not sure about Texas. lol
I think you are assuming redistribution means "equal distribution". Redistribution actually just means "to distribute again". Distribute just means to "hand out" in some fashion. It doesn't mean "equally".
For instance, the wealth is already "distributed" in the United States. It just isn't equally distributed. When you declare you want to redistribute the wealth, you are just saying you want to "move the wealth around". That statement without a context implying a Marxian redistribution(IE equal or equitable) could mean any form of distribution. Including taking wealth from the lower classes and giving it to the higher classes.
In fact, any tax system by its basic definition does nothing but redistribute wealth. Taxes "take from some and give to others".
Do you have anything besides generalizations......? Or do you not understand how much more of an "entitlement society" a lot of the Nordic countries are..... Or how they heavily tax O&G extraction and use the revenues.....
Would you support some type of free higher education for everyone like they would?
In European countries in general the free education creates a glut of PhDs who end doing menial work or have to leave their country to find a decent job.
Just looking at the best practices suggested in Norway, most of the US population would be homeless wanderers in Norway. Our high school dropout rate alone would make that system not viable.
You must learn their language. Forget about it. Social justice would be upset to support one language.
"Formal education is very important for work in Norway. It is hard to get an average job without a Bachelor’s degree. It is hard to get a good paying job without a Master’s degree. This is because it is so easy to get educated in Norway (as all education is free) and therefore you have to compete with Norwegians who are highly educated. The easiest way to look for a job in Norway is via the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV.no). This is because every weekday they collect all the new job openings from newspapers, job-boards and websites from around the country and post them on their own job seeking database. Looking through the NAV database will tell you a lot about the Norwegian job market. A view of the Norwegian job market: First of all you will notice that about 90% of information on the NAV website is in Norwegian. Its job search database is only in Norwegian. This gives you a good idea of what Norwegian employers are looking for – workers who are competent with the Norwegian language."
For any system to work requires full participation of the citizens, a desire to work to improve their situation and take personal responsibility. The sytem is inert, it is the people that make or break any system.
I'm mostly Scandinavian and would not be opposed to having a similar system if we in America were more homogeneous (ethnically, racially, culturally), but we are not and I do not want my tax dollars going to alien cultures and peoples who are so unlike minded as me.
Typical conservative sentiment; I'm okay with my tax dollars supporting other white people, but I don't want minorities getting any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kryptic
They can do it in places like Sweden because they are (until recently) basically a homogeneous group of people with like-minded backgrounds and views.
This will all change though as it already is in places like Malmo where they are letting alien third-worlders into their land and now asking for more and more.
Similarly in the US this is happening via the invasions of the hordes from the South.
If you don't like black and brown people, have more white children. White people have the lowest birth rates on planet earth. The only group responsible for this population decline is white people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
