"Capitalists = Job Creators" is Completely Wrong

[Valmy]

Countries with low amounts of debt do not have less advertising.

I'd be surprised if that is true.

Germany and Japan have famously savings crazy populations.  Do you think those countries are low on ads?

[Tamas]

 

[Berkut]

"Capitalists = Job Creators" is Completely Wrong"

What an excellent example of how to completely ruin an otherwise potentially interesting point by grossly overstating a premise.

[CountDeMoney]

Germany and Japan have famously savings crazy populations.  Do you think those countries are low on ads?

They're also big on shit porn.  Connection?

[grumbler]

It is not selfish. Quite the contrary. It seeks fair and proportionally same contribution from each citizen, with no qualitive distinction between them based on income

I wonder if you realize that these are merely words, selected by you to make you feel better about your a priori conclusion. 

It is perfectly fair to tax the rich disproportionately to income if they receive disproportionate benefit from the government services that are paid for by the taxes.

...and doing that by ensuring that as much income (PRODUCTS OF THEIR WORK, let's not forget) remains with them as possible

These two implicit arguments are separate from the issue of progressive taxation.  It is certainly arguable that government taxes should leave as much income as possible in private hands (since it is consumer demand that drives modern economies), and is is also, and separately, arguable that income that is the product of work rather than investment should be treated differently from inherited or investment income.  But these points aren't related to progressive taxation at all, and aren't really much about the "fair" element, either.

[Sheilbh]

You are looking at it from the individuals perspective.

I look at it more from a systemic perspective.

The state requires funds to operate. Quite a lot of funds in fact. Where should it get those funds?

I agree with everything you've said and I'd just chip in that there's a social element.  What is a fair tax system is going to be decided differently by different societies - which is why it's really an issue for elections not dogma.  So I think there is broad support for very high tax rates in Scandinavia because they think that's a fair way to support their very large welfare state which is also broadly supported.  That system wouldn't work in the UK and I'm certain it wouldn't work in Eastern Europe or the US either.

The other thing is that I personally suspect that the rate of tax a country can bear is linked to social trust - which is high in Northern Europe.  If you basically trust and respect your state institutions and there's a sense of community then you'll be willing to pay more.  If you don't respect them, think they're corrupt or whatever then you won't and you'll be more likely to evade tax.  I think within Europe Scandinavia and parts of Eastern Europe are probably at different ends of those extremes, so they need and can bear different policies to actually support the state.

The other thing I'd add on Hungary in particular is that continuity helps.  My old job was as a tax researcher and Hungary was one of the nightmare countries, because they had a habit of changing everything enormously every year.  We had to update computer programs that run tax calculators too and more than once we had to write entirely new code not used for any other country just to deal with what the Hungarian government was doing

[Tamas]

The other thing is that I personally suspect that the rate of tax a country can bear is linked to social trust - which is high in Northern Europe.  If you basically trust and respect your state institutions and there's a sense of community then you'll be willing to pay more.  If you don't respect them, think they're corrupt or whatever then you won't and you'll be more likely to evade tax.  I think within Europe Scandinavia and parts of Eastern Europe are probably at different ends of those extremes, so they need and can bear different policies to actually support the state.

Yes, this is a big, probably decisive element.

While mostly conceeding to Berkut's point, I would argue that in modern times, VAT would be a more efficient way to handle state income. I am not sure about the implications of it - we have a record high VAT AND considerable income tax, thats all I know

But you could play with VAT as well, not having any on subsistence goods for example, while high ones on top luxury items.
Income tax is pretty easy to cheat, VAT is much, much harder.

But to return to the quote - again, I think that is indeed a decisive factor, and also a pretty good argument against showcasing the Scandi states as regular welfare states. They have (well, had) a culture and society very fit for it. They are the exception, not the rule.

[Jacob]

"Capitalists = Job Creators" is Completely Wrong"

What an excellent example of how to completely ruin an otherwise potentially interesting point by grossly overstating a premise.

Seems like it's gone pretty good so far, perhaps with a few (and unsurprising) exceptions

[grumbler]

Seems like it's gone pretty good so far, perhaps with a few (and unsurprising) exceptions

Just shows how interesting discussions can come from abandoning the most absurd polemical starting premises, with the usual (and unsurprising) exceptions. 

[Gups]

But you could play with VAT as well, not having any on subsistence goods for example, while high ones on top luxury items.
Income tax is pretty easy to cheat, VAT is much, much harder.

VAT on goods is reasonably easy to enforce, on services less so.

And if VAT gets very high (which it would have to if income tax were to be abolished or significantly reduced) then the incentives to avoid it (e.g. through smuggling) would become much greater.

Income tax is pretty easy to enforce except against the very rich. PAYE schemes work very efficiently.

[Sheilbh]

But to return to the quote - again, I think that is indeed a decisive factor, and also a pretty good argument against showcasing the Scandi states as regular welfare states. They have (well, had) a culture and society very fit for it. They are the exception, not the rule.

I'm not suggesting the Scandis should be a model.  I'm saying they're an extreme example.  Different welfare states are doing different things in different ways all over the world.  There is no 'regular' welfare state.  So to rail against that and suggest we tear it all down is about the same as saying we should all be Scandinavians.

[grumbler]

But to return to the quote - again, I think that is indeed a decisive factor, and also a pretty good argument against showcasing the Scandi states as regular welfare states. They have (well, had) a culture and society very fit for it. They are the exception, not the rule.

Well, yeah, duh!  That's precisely what the quote argues.

Edit:  Too slow. 

[Admiral Yi]

Explain.

It's sophomoric extension of the chain of causality.  It would make as much sense to say that it's neither consumers nor capitalists, its mothers who create jobs by giving birth to people who demand goods and services.  Or it's employers who create demand by paying people.

As Haiku alluded to, demand doesn't automatically create a job.  I would like to eat some Ethiopian food for lunch, but no one is reading my mind and rushing to cook it spontaneously.  Someone somewhere has to make a prediction/guess about demand, assume some risk, put his money and time on the line, and hope that the demand materializes.

[Razgovory]

Countries with low amounts of debt do not have less advertising.

I'd be surprised if that is true.

Germany and Japan have famously savings crazy populations.  Do you think those countries are low on ads?

I suspect less then the US.  Doesn't Japan and Germany have a subscription based TV like the UK?  I imagine they have less TV commercials because of that.  In fact, checking the internet Germany has restrictions on how many commercials can be shown in an hour.  I wonder if you can advertise prescription medications on the TV in those countries.

[Razgovory]

Explain.

It's sophomoric extension of the chain of causality.  It would make as much sense to say that it's neither consumers nor capitalists, its mothers who create jobs by giving birth to people who demand goods and services.  Or it's employers who create demand by paying people.

As Haiku alluded to, demand doesn't automatically create a job.  I would like to eat some Ethiopian food for lunch, but no one is reading my mind and rushing to cook it spontaneously.  Someone somewhere has to make a prediction/guess about demand, assume some risk, put his money and time on the line, and hope that the demand materializes.

I don't think anyone said demand automatically creates a job.  Also what is with you and Habbkku and weird technology to prove your points.  Mind reading and Time Machines.