6 ms·

Dangerous in what way? I'm European and baffled by this sentence.

cylinder 8y ago
Americans are deathly afraid of government. It's not just the lower or extreme classes. As you can see it's pervasive even on HN. The irony is that Europe, Australia etc are much less "dangerous" than the US
- isostatic 8y ago
  Have you seen who they elect?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chlvsl 8y ago
  removing danger is not the primary goal lol. better to die a lion than live as a sheep.
  - cylinder 8y ago
    Keep believing you live in a movie, works great for society.
    - chlvsl 8y ago
      I don't live in a movie, but I definitely don't want to remove anything remotely dangerous to my person (see: everything) because it has the capacity for danger.
oblio 8y ago
We have a different mindset and tend to see the state as a big, albeit slow and annoying, institution that's meant to work for us (minus corruption). See Rousseau's "social contract". From what I've noticed Americans tend to lean more towards "state = bad; state = tyranny". There is a certain irony, seeing that bar outright dictatorships (China), the US state is and has been the strongest one for over half a century...
- miscreanity 8y ago
  The US as a nation was/is strong thanks to its people, not the government. This has been due to the fact that the US Constitution is restrictive - individual freedoms are expressly permitted and functions of the state are explicitly limited. In effect, the government was disciplined as opposed to incredibly overbearing; individuals were allowed to grow, learn and create for themselves instead of relying on government. That system has been attacked from the beginning and the US is rapidly becoming a nation where government replaces the family as social structure. What is now will not always be - the trend is of far greater importance than momentary status.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "individuals were allowed to grow, learn and create for themselves instead of relying on government." Individuals are not able to do any of that when they're stuck working 3 jobs just to get by, or when they go bankrupt due to a simple medical procedure.
    - miscreanity 8y ago
      Death was more of a concern in the 1800s regarding medical procedures. Multiple jobs just to get by sounds a lot like today yet plenty of people still grow, learn and create.
miscreanity 8y ago
Concentration of power inevitably leads to abuse - the only question is how long it will take until the taxation burden becomes overwhelming. It appears we're fast approaching that point and the next decade will break many Western nations while what are currently considered developing or emerging markets will rise to prominence.
- oblio 8y ago
  1. US had the longest period of high growth when taxation was "overwhelming" (post-war boom). 2. Several developed countries have "overwhelming taxation", yet quite high economic growth and are among the world's top 10 regarding human development. 3. Developing countries will have to increase their taxation. That's how development works: you get a bigger and more effective state that can offer advanced services reliably. 4. Almost all underdeveloped countries, on the contrary, have weak states that can barely collect taxes.
  - miscreanity 8y ago
    1. There are numerous cyclical factors that affect the productivity of a population. Growth in the US post-WWII was strong enough to offset taxation. Additionally, the US has enjoyed a status of economic core which has helped to prop up the tax regime. However, it is plain to see that has been crumbling since the early 2000s. 2. Name some countries - are they growing more than 10%? 3. Increasing taxation is how the strangulation of a population works, so in that sense you are correct. The state always fails. If it didn't, and taxation "worked", we would be living in a utopia. 4. Weak States that cannot enforce taxation are the ones where the population has freedom to grow without onerous tax burdens and corporate protectionism. A static view of the world assumes taxation is necessary. A nonlinear view recognizes the destruction it causes.
    - oblio 8y ago
      1. Ok. 2. Sustained growth at more than 10% is not realistic, especially for developed countries. I'm from a developing country and turning dirt farmers to office workers consistently will grow your economy by 10%. At some point you're going to run out of dirt farmers. This point is moot. Regarding high, realistic growth (2-3%) for developed countries: Singapore, Sweden. 3. States tend to fail far more often due to external factors. In the modern era that's becoming rarer and rarer as the cost of destabilizing a foreign state generally outweighs the benefits. 4. I'd be very happy if you could show me some examples. Which "weak states" are developed states? I wouldn't call any state in a developed country a "weak state".
oever 8y ago
Germany goes even further. The authorities collect tax for the religious organizations since 1919. If you're a Roman Catholic moving to Germany, suddenly you're faced with 8-9% of extra income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany
- taejo 8y ago
  8-9% of the income tax. Since income tax is substantially less than 100%, the church tax is substantially less than 8% of income.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    With income tax of say 30%, that's still well over 2% of your income funding a cult? How is that possible?
    - michaelt 8y ago
      People who aren't members of a church-tax-collecting denomination don't have to pay it. So it's entirely voluntary. Much like signing up for Netflix, except more expensive and a slightly different collection mechanism. And if you think that's weird, look at the British "Chancel repair liability"
      - isostatic 8y ago
        That I think comes from various claims to the land which, while freehold, has certain obligations (just like you may have covenants for neighbours to be able to access their land over yours). It was particularly bad until recently, as the obligations were often hidden. They no longer are - if there's an obligation it's right there on the land register, just like covenants, and show up in the standard searches during the conveyancing process. It's effectively a land tax to support a local amenity -- churches are part of the cultural background of British villages. I'd rather a formal land tax system to support all local amenities. A larger concern to me are faith schools.
- 8y ago
boobsbr 8y ago
It's how it's done in Brazil and it does not work out. States constantly pleading for more money while the Federal Government wants to spend it itself, or gives preferential treatment to certain states, while others languish.
efnx 8y ago
Dangerous because I don’t trust our current federal government to appropriately redistribute those taxes.

Americans are deathly afraid of government. It's not just the lower or extreme classes. As you can see it's pervasive even on HN. The irony is that Europe, Australia etc are much less "dangerous" than the US

isostatic 8y ago
Have you seen who they elect?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chlvsl 8y ago
removing danger is not the primary goal lol. better to die a lion than live as a sheep.
- cylinder 8y ago
  Keep believing you live in a movie, works great for society.
  - chlvsl 8y ago
    I don't live in a movie, but I definitely don't want to remove anything remotely dangerous to my person (see: everything) because it has the capacity for danger.

oblio 8y ago

We have a different mindset and tend to see the state as a big, albeit slow and annoying, institution that's meant to work for us (minus corruption). See Rousseau's "social contract". From what I've noticed Americans tend to lean more towards "state = bad; state = tyranny". There is a certain irony, seeing that bar outright dictatorships (China), the US state is and has been the strongest one for over half a century...

miscreanity 8y ago
The US as a nation was/is strong thanks to its people, not the government. This has been due to the fact that the US Constitution is restrictive - individual freedoms are expressly permitted and functions of the state are explicitly limited. In effect, the government was disciplined as opposed to incredibly overbearing; individuals were allowed to grow, learn and create for themselves instead of relying on government. That system has been attacked from the beginning and the US is rapidly becoming a nation where government replaces the family as social structure. What is now will not always be - the trend is of far greater importance than momentary status.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "individuals were allowed to grow, learn and create for themselves instead of relying on government." Individuals are not able to do any of that when they're stuck working 3 jobs just to get by, or when they go bankrupt due to a simple medical procedure.
  - miscreanity 8y ago
    Death was more of a concern in the 1800s regarding medical procedures. Multiple jobs just to get by sounds a lot like today yet plenty of people still grow, learn and create.

miscreanity 8y ago

Concentration of power inevitably leads to abuse - the only question is how long it will take until the taxation burden becomes overwhelming. It appears we're fast approaching that point and the next decade will break many Western nations while what are currently considered developing or emerging markets will rise to prominence.

oblio 8y ago
1. US had the longest period of high growth when taxation was "overwhelming" (post-war boom). 2. Several developed countries have "overwhelming taxation", yet quite high economic growth and are among the world's top 10 regarding human development. 3. Developing countries will have to increase their taxation. That's how development works: you get a bigger and more effective state that can offer advanced services reliably. 4. Almost all underdeveloped countries, on the contrary, have weak states that can barely collect taxes.
- miscreanity 8y ago
  1. There are numerous cyclical factors that affect the productivity of a population. Growth in the US post-WWII was strong enough to offset taxation. Additionally, the US has enjoyed a status of economic core which has helped to prop up the tax regime. However, it is plain to see that has been crumbling since the early 2000s. 2. Name some countries - are they growing more than 10%? 3. Increasing taxation is how the strangulation of a population works, so in that sense you are correct. The state always fails. If it didn't, and taxation "worked", we would be living in a utopia. 4. Weak States that cannot enforce taxation are the ones where the population has freedom to grow without onerous tax burdens and corporate protectionism. A static view of the world assumes taxation is necessary. A nonlinear view recognizes the destruction it causes.
  - oblio 8y ago
    1. Ok. 2. Sustained growth at more than 10% is not realistic, especially for developed countries. I'm from a developing country and turning dirt farmers to office workers consistently will grow your economy by 10%. At some point you're going to run out of dirt farmers. This point is moot. Regarding high, realistic growth (2-3%) for developed countries: Singapore, Sweden. 3. States tend to fail far more often due to external factors. In the modern era that's becoming rarer and rarer as the cost of destabilizing a foreign state generally outweighs the benefits. 4. I'd be very happy if you could show me some examples. Which "weak states" are developed states? I wouldn't call any state in a developed country a "weak state".

oever 8y ago

Germany goes even further. The authorities collect tax for the religious organizations since 1919. If you're a Roman Catholic moving to Germany, suddenly you're faced with 8-9% of extra income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany

taejo 8y ago
8-9% of the income tax. Since income tax is substantially less than 100%, the church tax is substantially less than 8% of income.
- isostatic 8y ago
  With income tax of say 30%, that's still well over 2% of your income funding a cult? How is that possible?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    People who aren't members of a church-tax-collecting denomination don't have to pay it. So it's entirely voluntary. Much like signing up for Netflix, except more expensive and a slightly different collection mechanism. And if you think that's weird, look at the British "Chancel repair liability"
    - isostatic 8y ago
      That I think comes from various claims to the land which, while freehold, has certain obligations (just like you may have covenants for neighbours to be able to access their land over yours). It was particularly bad until recently, as the obligations were often hidden. They no longer are - if there's an obligation it's right there on the land register, just like covenants, and show up in the standard searches during the conveyancing process. It's effectively a land tax to support a local amenity -- churches are part of the cultural background of British villages. I'd rather a formal land tax system to support all local amenities. A larger concern to me are faith schools.
8y ago

boobsbr 8y ago

It's how it's done in Brazil and it does not work out. States constantly pleading for more money while the Federal Government wants to spend it itself, or gives preferential treatment to certain states, while others languish.

efnx 8y ago

Dangerous because I don’t trust our current federal government to appropriately redistribute those taxes.