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.
Isn't it obvious that tax dollars are used differently in different types of economies, not to mention the different demographics, history, expectations, etc.
Are you happy with our "the rich just keep getting richer tax model?"
I explained why that's happening in the other thread:
In a socialist economy tax dollars are not used to benefit corporations first with the workers to suffer whatever the corporations need them to suffer.
Then... why do socialist governments almost always fail?
And another factor you're forgetting about... the $27 Trillion in investments U.S. workers and retirees have in their pension/retirement accounts. Guess where a rather significant bulk of corporate profits and increased share value goes... Yep, to the workers and retirees.
So, while you may "think" workers don't benefit, they do.
Why when someone says the horror world "Venezuela" someone else replies "Scandinavia"? What does the Nordic Countries have to do with a failed 3rd world country? Nothing. It's not even comparing apples with oranges, it's comparing Jupiter with an elephant.
First of all, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist, and never have been. All the quotes from that 'new american' blog are complete BS, and this is coming from one who has lived and paid taxes all his life in one of those said countries.
The Scandinavian countries are free-market capitalist and individualistic countries who have implemented some socialistic ideas into capitalism. Yes, it's possible to combine them. This region in Northern Europe was one of the most miserable backwards and poor regions of Europe in 1800. Today they are among the richest, happiest, most innovative, safest and prosperous countries not only in Europe, but in the world.
This was not achieved by collectivising the economy or by social ownership, but to encourage free market, free trade, cut needless bureaucracy, individual freedom and innovation with having the small populace as educated as possible. Big government was needed in some places, as to ensure the possibility of opportunity. But this is not necessary socialism, it may be called democracy - everyone should at least in utopian thinking to have the same possibilities in life. This is naturally not completely true, but the social mobility is much higher than in the US. So maybe the American Dream in the 21th century is the Scandinavian Dream?
The strive to make people more equal has indeed raised taxes, but election after election after election the people in these countries vote for this system. One may ask why? Because the people have noticed that the system works. They are not giving up liberty for safety and equality, they pay it with money. And this is not for altruistic reasons, but for selfish ones. I pay taxes quite gladly not because it's better for some obscure guy in another city, but because it's better for me! When a person sends his 7-yo daughter alone to school on public transport without even the slightest fear that someone would do her any harm, the person knows paying taxes is worth it.
Another feature of the system is that you benefit and contribute for it in various phases of your life. From day one to the time you graduate you're a benefitter (free education, free or low-cost healthcare, child benefits, subsidised student housing), when you work a full-time job and are in the middle-class you are a net contributer (taxes), but when you retire you are again a benefitter (pensions, elderly subsidised healthcare). Knowing this makes it reasonable to pay a bit more VAT or income tax. And those taxes you paid, a part of it ensures that also your kids will get free education. Not so that some trailer trash kid gets it, but your kids. So, you can happily spend your savings on a boat, summer house or hookers and coke if you fancy, because you don't have to save up for a college fund. Again, selfish reasons.
It's not either, or, it's BOTH. A 20-25% VAT PLUS their income tax is rather flat, with those earning about 1.5 times the average annual income in the top tax bracket. In the U.S. the top tax bracket doesn't start until one has an income that's 8.5 times the average income.
Quote:
Many times heard: "Sanders supporters are lazy and want everything for free". Well, a part of the big government in this aspect is to ensure that nobody misuses the system.The requirements to get social subsidies are strict, you have to do everything in your power to try to get employment, and the subsidies aren't really that big. They are only a little more than having the necessity to dig in dumpsters or mug some old lady on the street. And believe me, if the government pays you subsidies you don't deserve, they will notice, and they will come after you. I've noticed it myself when got student subsidies without acquiring enough credits. And those bastards even demanded interest!
It would be interesting to see how such a system would work in the U.S. There are a LOT of people who misuse the system here in the U.S.
The difference is that I am willing to learn. And one thing I know, however, is that the populations of Scandinavian countries (Denmark in particular) are quite happy with their government and society, as Ariete seems to represent. The statistics and studies are available and I have spoken to people from Denmark. They all indicate satisfaction beyond anything we have.
Would you be willing to implement a 20-25% VAT and a mostly flat federal income tax system (with the middle class in the top tax bracket, like they have) here in the U.S.?
Then your research is shoddy. What you say is not true.
Again, not true. Socialism is a system in which the people control the economy far, far more than most U.S. politicians and right wingers admit to existing here. How can you say people have no control in socialism when the whole concept is that of worker co-ops, workers' committees in the workplace deciding what to produce, when to produce it, where to produce it, where to sell it, and what to do with the profits? -And those committees then choose representatives to send to the halls of government to sit on workers' committees there and participate and report back?
Here, a plant supervisor descends on the production line to inform them of upcoming changes that were decided by the top management. In Mondragon Corporation the plant supervisor goes to the line workers and inquires regularly what the workers find would be helpful to them in doing their work, and then that info is taken back to top management for implementation. And you say the workers have no control.
Too bad your system, on a large scale, does not work. These worker co-ops are perfectly legal inside the capitalist system. Yet few exist. Take your socialist blinders off and ask yourself why.
There is no reason you and 100 of your socialist friends cannot pool your capital and do what you are speaking of right now. Stop talking and do it.
Are you happy with our "the rich just keep getting richer tax model?"
Of course not.
Quote:
Then... why do socialist governments almost always fail?
List a few. They don't "almost always fail". Some that have not failed are Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, and New Zealand to name a few.
Quote:
And another factor you're forgetting about... the $27 Trillion in investments U.S. workers and retirees have in their pension/retirement accounts. Guess where a rather significant bulk of corporate profits and increased share value goes... Yep, to the workers and retirees.
So, while you may "think" workers don't benefit, they do.
I don't believe I said workers don't benefit at all. And those pension programs were fought for by unions and extracted from some corporations in work agreements. Now they are being eliminated by government and business.
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
Too bad your system, on a large scale, does not work. These worker co-ops are perfectly legal inside the capitalist system. Yet few exist. Take your socialist blinders off and ask yourself why.
Unlike yours, my eyes are wide open fella. Workers' co-ops number about 60,000 here in the good ole' USA. Ever hear of "Costco"? And yet laws do not incentivize them but they do all sorts of things from tax breaks and subsidies to lax pollution controls and limitations on lawsuits to benefit corporations. Business gets the vast majority of the benefits here.
Would you support a law like they have in Spain that says if a corporation goes bankrupt, and the workers can get 10 of them together and agree to take over the business, the government will give each of those 10 their whole 2 years' worth of unemployment benefits up front in a lump sum to fund their effort to run the business?
Quote:
There is no reason you and 100 of your socialist friends cannot pool your capital and do what you are speaking of right now. Stop talking and do it.
Yup, that's always the answer. And then when I point out that there's a reason it's not more common, the right says "yeah, workers are lazy/too stupid/incapable etc. etc". But I just told you why it doesn't happen more in the last paragraph.
They don't "almost always fail". Some that have not failed are Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, and New Zealand to name a few.
Did you not read Ariete's post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
First of all, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist, and never have been...
The Scandinavian countries are free-market capitalist and individualistic countries who have implemented some socialistic ideas into capitalism. Yes, it's possible to combine them. This region in Northern Europe was one of the most miserable backwards and poor regions of Europe in 1800. Today they are among the richest, happiest, most innovative, safest and prosperous countries not only in Europe, but in the world.
This was not achieved by collectivising the economy or by social ownership, but to encourage free market, free trade, cut needless bureaucracy, individual freedom and innovation with having the small populace as educated as possible...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kode
I don't believe I said workers don't benefit at all. And those pension programs were fought for by unions and extracted from some corporations in work agreements.
So you ADMIT that corporations benefit workers MUCH more than you thought.
Quote:
Now they are being eliminated by government and business.
If they're so "eliminated," How is there still $27 Trillion (the highest amount ever, by the way) invested in pension/retirement accounts?
Apparently, not. Your posts indicate there's a LOT of facts you haven't even been paying attention to. Just two to name a couple:
1) European and Scandinavian countries tax regressively instead of progressively and consequently have MUCH lower income inequality due to the basic math of the U.S. having MUCH too narrow of a federal tax base in a progressive tax system.
2) American workers and retirees have $27 Trillion invested in their pension/retirement accounts, and therefore DIRECTLY benefit from corporate profits and/or an increase in corporate share vale.
Ok that's a crock. And by "The American Thinker" of course.
"Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff."
Yup, that's what we have but no, people are objecting to it all. Socialism? Check Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc.
Or are they too good to catch your attention and interest?
No, it's not a "crock" and it isn't "by the American Thinker, either. The American Thinker simply posted the writer's article (and she happens to be a friend of mine).
And, further, she is right on target as to American voters, who do seem to want the government involved and controlling everything. That is your typical Democrat voter, and especially, so-called "millennials."
You seem uninformed.
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.
