"Capitalists = Job Creators" is Completely Wrong

[Zoupa]

Meaning what? No more income tax eventually?

[Ideologue]

Progressive income tax being practically good when the aim is to have more tax to spend, is something I can see. More tax income is good when your goal is to have more tax income. And when you are better off making the people dependent on the state (you) rather than becoming not dependent on it, it makes sense to stop people from acquiring wealth.

But nobody has been able to explain the moral angle. The morally right thing is to tax everyone the same percentage. Why is it immoral that some people earn more than others? Why should these people be punished by a higher income tax?

My belief is that they have benefited inequitably from the stability and services provided by the state (and ultimately by the people), so it is fair that they split some of that difference with the state (and ultimately the people) which made their success possible.  The state and people invested in them, in uncountably many and different ways.  The state and people deserve their return, as well as the individual, whose (undisputed) economic success is factually not due to their own merits alone.

By that logic, we should ban smart people from going to college, because they can get on in life just fine without higher education. Let's reserve their places to dumb people, they need the education much better!

Quite the opposite.  The state, being a prudent investor, should only send people to college who will benefit from it, and whom the people will benefit from being sent to college, and not waste the people's money or individuals' time and effort.

(Of course, an argument can be made that a universally college-educated populace will be more genteel, less violent, more stable populace.  But that's a different topic.)

[Sheilbh]

Meh. I wanted to continue with examples, but you know what? Screw you. If it it convinient for you to dismiss my views based on my ethnicity  (lol how very Polish of you), when welfare states around the world suffer and crumble under their own weight, well, I am glad to be of help.

But as I've said, this isn't true.  The most integrated and comprehensive welfare states exist in Northern Europe, especially the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia.  Those countries continue to do well, but of course there's always welfare reform ongoing because you can't stop developing and improving the system.  Germany went through Schroeder's reforms, for example, and the Netherlands passed enormous healthcare reform in 2006.

By contrast the countries in Europe in trouble have less comprehensive and often quite inadequate welfare states: Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal.

What's more the developing world is building their own welfare systems, tentatively and often with mixed success, but it's happening.

I do think one particular Hungarian angle you have may be that you're in a country with an ageing and a declining population.  That's a different perspective on welfare.  In the UK and France we may be ageing but we've still got decent birthrates and global languages that are attractive to migrants so our population's aren't projected to decline.  That's a totally different perspective and situation to deal with.

Redistribution is a failed experiment and we will witness the end, or very serious reduction of it. Wether through a controlled reform movement, or by crash and  burn, is yet to be seen.

It depends what you mean by redistribution though, there's lots of potentially redistributive policies but I think you mean something specific.  In terms of a broad understanding of redistribution, then I think you're wrong.

Oh shut the fuck up with that already. NEWSFLASH: people's experiences influence their view on the world. OH THE SHOCK!

This is true.  I'd go further though.  I think cultural experience and values - as well as institutional ability - shape welfare policy more than most areas.  For example Southern Europe, as I've said, actually has a pretty poor welfare system in comparison with the North.  It's also relatively heavily weighted towards the elderly.  In part I think this was probably because generally Southern Europe had stronger family ties and relations of mutual support than countries elsewhere.  Similarly I think this helps explain other welfare policies.  Different cultural values will address similar problems in different ways.  But those problems, social immobility, inequality, an ageing population and poverty, are present everywhere and I don't think there's any government outside of the odd African kleptocracy that is giving up on dealing with them.

[Ideologue]

When I was younger, I thought all the old people would die off, or at least retire, and my, smaller generation would get all their stuff.  Didn't happen.

[Tamas]

Meaning what? No more income tax eventually?

No. Altough I find VAT to be more practical and harder to cheat on, but I am no expert.


In general, we pose to have a just society, or by aiming for it, by removing money from the selfish private individual, and giving it to the state so it can objectively redistribute it, helping those who are in need.
But this is utter bullshit. The state is led by a small group of individuals. The spending of tax money is driven by their interests.
Yes, it is in their interest to pay off the poor and slow down the ascend of the middle class, since that preserves the power of the current aristocracy, without the danger of a new one rising.

We need to have a more free, more fair economy. The bailouts must go. A market run on state and central bank declarations must go. This is not capitalism. This is corporatism, if anything.
The state's influence on the marktes must be reduced, and you can only reduce that by reducing the power they have over their own spending.

[Tamas]

My belief is that they have benefited inequitably from the stability and services provided by the state (and ultimately by the people), so it is fair that they split some of that difference with the state (and ultimately the people) which made their success possible.  The state and people invested in them, in uncountably many and different ways.  The state and people deserve their return, as well as the individual, whose (undisputed) economic success is factually not due to their own merits alone.

Thanks for taking the time for actually explaining why you think it is fair. I disagree, but at least you took the effort.
I disagree because even if I accept your stance, namely that no individual can benefit from his talent without the mighty state guiding him along the way, the people who achieve higher than average income, enjoy the exact same perks as the ones who don't. And, even with a flat tax, they pay in considerably more than those who failed to take advantage.

My biggest theoretical problem with a progressive tax is that it projects the idea that society's desired place for the individual is somewhat below middle class. Or lower middle class, depending on where your lowest bracket ends. Anything above that is not really necessary or desired, and therefore can be robbed more of it's gains.

[Sheilbh]

No. Altough I find VAT to be more practical and harder to cheat on, but I am no expert.

I agree VAT should  play a big part of the tax mix.

In general, we pose to have a just society, or by aiming for it, by removing money from the selfish private individual, and giving it to the state so it can objectively redistribute it, helping those who are in need.

We vote for certain policies and then decide how to pay for them.  Those are separate.  But I actually generally agree that the tax system's a bad place to find a just society.  So far as possible we should have an economically neutral tax system that has a healthy mix of revenue streams and is sufficient to meet the costs of government.  That's all.  I don't think there's much space for morality in tax policy and fairness is a good topic for elections.

[Razgovory]

Why would I do that?

To create a supply for your infinite demand of course.  I took your statement as a criticism of "demand-side" economics.  So presumably a "supply-side" attempt at a time machine would bear fruit.

[Tamas]

We vote for certain policies and then decide how to pay for them.  Those are separate.  But I actually generally agree that the tax system's a bad place to find a just society.  So far as possible we should have an economically neutral tax system that has a healthy mix of revenue streams and is sufficient to meet the costs of government.  That's all.  I don't think there's much space for morality in tax policy and fairness is a good topic for elections.

Yes. I would add that we would probably be better off by removing ideology from governance. What I mean is that a truley liberal society should have a state which ensure fair treatment and an equal "playing ground" for all of it's citizens. It should be forbidden from trying to socially engineer society one way or the other. That would, for example allow religious folks to maintain their own churches, as well as leave more money with solidarity-minded people for charitable activities, and etc.

[Sheilbh]

That's a very ideological position though

[Syt]

Meaning what? No more income tax eventually?

No. Altough I find VAT to be more practical and harder to cheat on, but I am no expert.

It also leads to a higher tax quota on lower incomes, because they use a higher percentage of their income for consumption.

[Tamas]

That's a very ideological position though

Yes, but IMHO it is better to remove the ideological struggles from the state budget, and you can only do that if you seriously curb what can be in the state budget.

It IS a subjective view, granted.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, but IMHO it is better to remove the ideological struggles from the state budget, and you can only do that if you seriously curb what can be in the state budget.

What you support is very ideological, though, so you can't non-ideologically remove ideology from politics.  Maybe Mario Monti can, but that's it.  It's like people saying someone else's politics aren't reasonable, or they're ideological or whatever else - what's really happening is they're saying those views are unacceptable and rather than deal with them we'll declare them anathema.  Socially we do this to extremists, which I think is fine, but we shouldn't do it with mainstream views that differ.  The Tory leadership have done it with the Tory right, who they say are just ideological headbangers, while they occupy the rational, sensible central ground.  It's nonsense of course. 

But how is an equal playing field different from other types of social engineering?  Also it is, with respect, a bit of a vacuous statement.  Outside of a few Tory Lords I don't think anyone would support an unequal playing field anymore.  So it's a bit of a bromide, apple pie and motherhood kind of statement.

The way you try and achieve an equal playing field are where the ideology comes in.

[Tamas]

equal playing field legally.

Any other "equality" reduces individual freedom. Free people are not equal, equal people are not free.

[Sheilbh]

You need to explain that a bit more.