8 ms·

You Can't Soak the Rich

91 points by epi0Bauqu 18y ago

run4yourlives 18y ago
Huge beefs here: 1. To suggest taxing the rich at a higher rate is the sole reason for a drop in GDP is simply ludicrous. Being that government spending is a part of the GDP equation, it's much too complex to attribute to a single cause. For example, given that the public's appetite for taxing the rich would increase in hard times, it would also stand to reason that governments are reducing spending concurrently, and that is the reason for the stagnation. 2. The implicit suggestion that GDP increases are inherently good and GDP decreases are inherently bad is outdated. You could get a GDP increase by dropping a nuke on LA. The US doesn't even use GDP to measure economic health anymore, but rather GNP. 3. I would love to see a graph that uses the total net revenue as an adjusted dollar amount, and leaves the GDP equation out of it. I'm pretty sure the results would be rather different.
Antiglobalism 18y ago
The problem is not rich people, the problem is rich people who ability-wise are slaves. Class is a stupid idea, caste is a better one.
epi0Bauqu 18y ago
Interesting regardless of your politics. Summary chart: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_200...
- chris_l 18y ago
  Ok, maybe I missed something, but what exactly does the blue curve show?
  - epi0Bauqu 18y ago
    The top marginal tax rate. Yes, it was 90%+ for a while: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
    - chris_l 18y ago
      Wow, that's some variation there. As a foreigner I always saw the US as a country of low taxes, I guess that's not the whole story.
fallentimes 18y ago
It's a shame small government is long gone from the US.
- jshen 18y ago
  yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Nice strawman argument.
    - jshen 18y ago
      How is it a strawman? I'm beginning to think your curt answers veil an inability to deal with the complexities of reality.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        And perhaps your strawman argument veils an inability to debate the topic at hand. I never said anything about doing away with public education. Small government != the doing away of all social programs. "yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education." Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman. Anyways... I'm all for government sponsored programs that work along side the private industry (and force competition) in order to contribute to the general welfare, which is what the constitution states. For example: defense, infrastructure and education among others. However, I'd love to rid our government of all the pet projects, pork, worthless organizations (and employees) and general waste that rape our income. It's near impossible to fire a government worker, which is a crime in and of itself. Our government is so inefficient that consulting firms are rolling out in mass "staff augmentation" programs that take over the responsibilities of a given agency/department. Think about that...you hire government workers to do job X. They are so incompetent at job X you hire high priced consultants to complete job X while not firing any of the workers. The end result? Job X is completed at two - three times the original cost. Ridiculous. If you ever want a first hand look at how inefficient the government is, live in DC for a few years.
cia_plant 18y ago
The Wall Street Journal needs to have its statistics license taken away. Every editorial manages to commit some sort of statistical fallacy. highest marginal tax rate is charted against total revenue as a percent of GDP. Absolutely worthless. Total revenue as a percent of GDP happens to be flat, so we can take any statistic we care to blather about, chart it against this line, and say: see? You can't get money from (fuel taxes | tariffs | mandatory minimum sentencing | software piracy).
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  The most heavily debated tax issue is the rate that the richest pay. Progressives argue that they should pay much higher percentages than they currently do. They fail to account for the added incentive to avoid such taxes and subsequent loophole creation and usage. So the core issue of tax policy has been the marginal tax rates verses total revenue. It isn't the WSJ.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    I wonder if there's some sort of fundamental relationship between the powerful elites in every given society and the rest reflected in the graph? Is there some sort of relationship like Boyle's Law for gases?
  - sdurkin 18y ago
    The argument is over what point we're at on the Laffer Curve, as well as the specific shape of the curve (i.e. is the right side so steep that we can tax at whatever rate we want up until revenues collapse entirely?), and about how tax enforcement policy can affect the shape of the curve. "They," meaning progressives, don't fail to account for anything. They just disagree with your analysis. Finally, the reason nobody knows or cares about this particular research is that most tax cuts were made with an eye toward maintaining revenue at a constant percentage of GDP. That is, the graph is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't predict what would happen with subsequent changes in the tax code. Furthermore, this isn't even in any way connected to MTRs for the rich. All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else. It doesn't illustrate increased collection rates, just increasingly regressive tax policy. Brief mathematical analysis of what this article said: TaxRateforRich x RichEarnings + TaxRateEveryoneElse x EveryoneElseEarnings = TotalRevenue Then they told you that as TaxRateforRich dropped, total revenue remained constant, and thus concluded that the amount of earnings reported by rich people (RichEarnings) must have risen. What they ignored was a rise in TaxRateEveryoneElse.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
edw519 18y ago
"Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income" Uh, let's not forget about finding legal tax shelters and using wealth to influence lawmakers to define what actually is a legal tax shelter. It's a pity that the article never explores the difference between income and wealth. Does anyone honestly believe that wealthy individuals haven't long ago figured out how to avoid paying the top rate?
wallflower 18y ago
Reminded me of this old article about how the effective tax rate in the U.S. can be argued to be virtually 40%: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTa...
- eru 18y ago
  And flat!
tlrobinson 18y ago
The top tax bracket was 90% in the 1950's?!
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Yes, but it didn't kick in until your income got up over $1 million or so. This was actually common around the globe before the Reagan/Thatcher revolution. Remember the Beatles song "Taxman"? "I'll tell you how it will be/ that's one for you nineteen for me/ 'cause I'm the Taxmaaaan!" The Beatles were actually paying 19 out of every 20 cents to Her Majesty's government, for a top rate of 95%.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    well, they paid 19 cents out of every 20 after the first million dollars.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      It's still obscene, ugly, wrong, and basically slavery.
      - Agathos 18y ago
        Please explain how it's slavery.
        llimllib 18y ago
        As I understand the libertarian argument (I can't promise that this is what Prrometheus means), a sketch looks like this: Money is your property Your body is your property Slavery is foreign control of your body Taxes are foreign control of your money Thus, by the transitive property, taxes are like slavery
        Prrometheus 18y ago
        I wasn't even going that far. I can see how people consider it hyperbole to call taxes "slavery" when someone is taking 40% of your earnings from you. You still have more than half of what you earned to do with as you will. But 95%? You're basically working solely for the good of whoever is stealing from you. It's true that they're not forcing you to work, but you either give over almost all your earnings or go without any benefit from your labor at all. I'm not the first to make the comparison, you know. I believe Frederick Douglas compared income taxes to slavery in his autobiography. Unfortunately, I listened to it on CD so I can't pull up the exact passage at the moment.
sanj 18y ago
By my read, this means that we should raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%. Why? If it doesn't matter, then you might as well make the unwashed masses (like me!) happy that the rich are "doing their fair share". Hauser fails to see that savvy political policy does not flow from "rational" economic policy.
- wmf 18y ago
  Read more carefully. If you increase the marginal tax rate, GDP probably decreases and thus tax revenue decreases.
  - dreish 18y ago
    Except it didn't. GDP grew faster in the fifties, with a 90% "millionaire's tax", than it did in the eighties, as top marginal rates were being cut to their lowest levels. Numbers from here: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg But this is something I noticed around 16 years ago.
    - Spyckie 18y ago
      Thanks, finally someone is pointing to real data rather than just waiving a magic wand in the air.
- jamespitts 18y ago
  The real problem with this scenario is that those people who are being taxed 90% might feel less of an obligation to contribute back through charity (even if they are paying far less than 90%).
rw 18y ago
"Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP [..]" No.
anaphoric 18y ago
Even if the article were true, I still believe in 'bubble up' rather than 'trickle down'. If you transfer money to the poor, then tend to be happier and thus cause less social problems (e.g. less crime, fewer beggars, etc.). The rich can afford it. Soak 'em :-)
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  what is this garbage? the poor tend to be happy when you give them money? you have zero basis for this. people tend to be happy when they earn success. people who are given money tend to be unsatisfied and lazy.
  - anaphoric 18y ago
    I said 'happier'. Besides what you do is not give (so much) money to the poor and middle class, but rather tax them less and tax the rich much more. The poor and middle will be happier as they keep more of their earnings and the rich, well, they will be alright.
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      well of course the bottom 5th income wise shouldn't pay tax as they contribute less than 1% of tax revenue and receive on average much more in government aid than they pay in taxes. seems like a silly little loop for the money to go in when you could just not tax them. warren buffet has advocated this program.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
taxes wouldn't be an issue if the government adjusted spending to reflect taxes instead of adjusting taxes to reflect spending.
anamax 18y ago
Under the "who should pay for govt?" question is another question - is it good for a large fraction of the population to have essentially no role in paying for govt? Suppose that we could get all of the tax revenue from 1000 people, should we? How about 1%?
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  people who don't pay taxes shouldn't vote. this would actually be an interesting opt out clause to experiment with. you can forgo taxes if you give up suffrage.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    it would be self balancing in a supply demand curve too. the more people that opted out the more power the remaining votes would have until equilibrium was reached between money and votes.
tphyahoo 18y ago
Uh, what if taxes sort of trend up everywhere? And there's hostility towards tax havens? They get cut off from wires, and you have to smuggle in cash / diamonds in suitcases, and it's a total pain in the ass and you become a social pariah? Not saying that should happen, but it could happen. Dumb article.
dejb 18y ago
The article doesn't even seem to acknowledge the existence of economies other than US. If you are trying to propose an economic 'law' then you really need to look at more than one country. In fact there are many other succesful economies that have a higher percentage Tax/GDP ratio than 19.5%
tocomment 18y ago
Finding laws in Economics reminds me of Psychohistory. I wonder if we'll ever have that field.
- ntoshev 18y ago
  Psychohistory can work in a society very different from ours (and certainly not the one Azimov described). In our society randomness plays too big of a role. Some of the current sources of uncertainty (like technological progress, or the personal freedom we have) may disappear in 1000 years, but this is purely a speculation.
logjam 18y ago
Executive summary: newspaper of the rich arguing for lower taxes for the rich.
- learneconomics 18y ago
  1. They are doing it with logic. 2. Do you consider the New York Times, or Washington Post, or any other major daily to be the newspaper of the poor? Give me a break.
helveticaman 18y ago
I think this is statistically relevant, as rich Americans pay a big part of taxes: During Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the IRS collected more than $2.2 trillion in tax net of refunds, about 44 percent of which was attributable to the individual income tax. This is partially due to the nature of the individual income tax category; containing taxes collected from working class, small business, self employed, and capital gains. Of the Individual Income Tax, the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of this amount. [8] [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service#Tax_collection_statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service#Tax_co... The top 5% pays 26.4% of tax receipts, and changes in the marginal tax rate for the top bracket usually affect tax rates of lower brackets. I'd say this news is pretty relevant.
tarkin2 18y ago
"What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice." And the Nordic countries, with a highly redistributive state, and some of the highest GDP per capita rates in the world?
chasingsparks 18y ago
Who is John Galt?

91 points by epi0Bauqu 18y ago

Huge beefs here: 1. To suggest taxing the rich at a higher rate is the sole reason for a drop in GDP is simply ludicrous. Being that government spending is a part of the GDP equation, it's much too complex to attribute to a single cause. For example, given that the public's appetite for taxing the rich would increase in hard times, it would also stand to reason that governments are reducing spending concurrently, and that is the reason for the stagnation. 2. The implicit suggestion that GDP increases are inherently good and GDP decreases are inherently bad is outdated. You could get a GDP increase by dropping a nuke on LA. The US doesn't even use GDP to measure economic health anymore, but rather GNP. 3. I would love to see a graph that uses the total net revenue as an adjusted dollar amount, and leaves the GDP equation out of it. I'm pretty sure the results would be rather different.

Antiglobalism 18y ago

The problem is not rich people, the problem is rich people who ability-wise are slaves. Class is a stupid idea, caste is a better one.

epi0Bauqu 18y ago

Interesting regardless of your politics. Summary chart: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_200...

chris_l 18y ago
Ok, maybe I missed something, but what exactly does the blue curve show?
- epi0Bauqu 18y ago
  The top marginal tax rate. Yes, it was 90%+ for a while: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
  - chris_l 18y ago
    Wow, that's some variation there. As a foreigner I always saw the US as a country of low taxes, I guess that's not the whole story.

fallentimes 18y ago

It's a shame small government is long gone from the US.

jshen 18y ago
yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Nice strawman argument.
  - jshen 18y ago
    How is it a strawman? I'm beginning to think your curt answers veil an inability to deal with the complexities of reality.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      And perhaps your strawman argument veils an inability to debate the topic at hand. I never said anything about doing away with public education. Small government != the doing away of all social programs. "yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education." Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman. Anyways... I'm all for government sponsored programs that work along side the private industry (and force competition) in order to contribute to the general welfare, which is what the constitution states. For example: defense, infrastructure and education among others. However, I'd love to rid our government of all the pet projects, pork, worthless organizations (and employees) and general waste that rape our income. It's near impossible to fire a government worker, which is a crime in and of itself. Our government is so inefficient that consulting firms are rolling out in mass "staff augmentation" programs that take over the responsibilities of a given agency/department. Think about that...you hire government workers to do job X. They are so incompetent at job X you hire high priced consultants to complete job X while not firing any of the workers. The end result? Job X is completed at two - three times the original cost. Ridiculous. If you ever want a first hand look at how inefficient the government is, live in DC for a few years.

cia_plant 18y ago

The Wall Street Journal needs to have its statistics license taken away. Every editorial manages to commit some sort of statistical fallacy. highest marginal tax rate is charted against total revenue as a percent of GDP. Absolutely worthless. Total revenue as a percent of GDP happens to be flat, so we can take any statistic we care to blather about, chart it against this line, and say: see? You can't get money from (fuel taxes | tariffs | mandatory minimum sentencing | software piracy).

ivankirigin 18y ago
The most heavily debated tax issue is the rate that the richest pay. Progressives argue that they should pay much higher percentages than they currently do. They fail to account for the added incentive to avoid such taxes and subsequent loophole creation and usage. So the core issue of tax policy has been the marginal tax rates verses total revenue. It isn't the WSJ.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  I wonder if there's some sort of fundamental relationship between the powerful elites in every given society and the rest reflected in the graph? Is there some sort of relationship like Boyle's Law for gases?
- sdurkin 18y ago
  The argument is over what point we're at on the Laffer Curve, as well as the specific shape of the curve (i.e. is the right side so steep that we can tax at whatever rate we want up until revenues collapse entirely?), and about how tax enforcement policy can affect the shape of the curve. "They," meaning progressives, don't fail to account for anything. They just disagree with your analysis. Finally, the reason nobody knows or cares about this particular research is that most tax cuts were made with an eye toward maintaining revenue at a constant percentage of GDP. That is, the graph is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't predict what would happen with subsequent changes in the tax code. Furthermore, this isn't even in any way connected to MTRs for the rich. All that this graph reflects is that as taxes were decreased for the upper %1 over the past half century, they were increased on everybody else. It doesn't illustrate increased collection rates, just increasingly regressive tax policy. Brief mathematical analysis of what this article said: TaxRateforRich x RichEarnings + TaxRateEveryoneElse x EveryoneElseEarnings = TotalRevenue Then they told you that as TaxRateforRich dropped, total revenue remained constant, and thus concluded that the amount of earnings reported by rich people (RichEarnings) must have risen. What they ignored was a rise in TaxRateEveryoneElse.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

edw519 18y ago

"Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income" Uh, let's not forget about finding legal tax shelters and using wealth to influence lawmakers to define what actually is a legal tax shelter. It's a pity that the article never explores the difference between income and wealth. Does anyone honestly believe that wealthy individuals haven't long ago figured out how to avoid paying the top rate?

wallflower 18y ago

Reminded me of this old article about how the effective tax rate in the U.S. can be argued to be virtually 40%: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTa...

eru 18y ago
And flat!

tlrobinson 18y ago

The top tax bracket was 90% in the 1950's?!

Prrometheus 18y ago
Yes, but it didn't kick in until your income got up over $1 million or so. This was actually common around the globe before the Reagan/Thatcher revolution. Remember the Beatles song "Taxman"? "I'll tell you how it will be/ that's one for you nineteen for me/ 'cause I'm the Taxmaaaan!" The Beatles were actually paying 19 out of every 20 cents to Her Majesty's government, for a top rate of 95%.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  well, they paid 19 cents out of every 20 after the first million dollars.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    It's still obscene, ugly, wrong, and basically slavery.
    - Agathos 18y ago
      Please explain how it's slavery.
      - llimllib 18y ago
        As I understand the libertarian argument (I can't promise that this is what Prrometheus means), a sketch looks like this: Money is your property Your body is your property Slavery is foreign control of your body Taxes are foreign control of your money Thus, by the transitive property, taxes are like slavery
        Prrometheus 18y ago
        I wasn't even going that far. I can see how people consider it hyperbole to call taxes "slavery" when someone is taking 40% of your earnings from you. You still have more than half of what you earned to do with as you will. But 95%? You're basically working solely for the good of whoever is stealing from you. It's true that they're not forcing you to work, but you either give over almost all your earnings or go without any benefit from your labor at all. I'm not the first to make the comparison, you know. I believe Frederick Douglas compared income taxes to slavery in his autobiography. Unfortunately, I listened to it on CD so I can't pull up the exact passage at the moment.

sanj 18y ago

By my read, this means that we should raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%. Why? If it doesn't matter, then you might as well make the unwashed masses (like me!) happy that the rich are "doing their fair share". Hauser fails to see that savvy political policy does not flow from "rational" economic policy.

wmf 18y ago
Read more carefully. If you increase the marginal tax rate, GDP probably decreases and thus tax revenue decreases.
- dreish 18y ago
  Except it didn't. GDP grew faster in the fifties, with a 90% "millionaire's tax", than it did in the eighties, as top marginal rates were being cut to their lowest levels. Numbers from here: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg But this is something I noticed around 16 years ago.
  - Spyckie 18y ago
    Thanks, finally someone is pointing to real data rather than just waiving a magic wand in the air.
jamespitts 18y ago
The real problem with this scenario is that those people who are being taxed 90% might feel less of an obligation to contribute back through charity (even if they are paying far less than 90%).

rw 18y ago

"Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP [..]" No.

anaphoric 18y ago

Even if the article were true, I still believe in 'bubble up' rather than 'trickle down'. If you transfer money to the poor, then tend to be happier and thus cause less social problems (e.g. less crime, fewer beggars, etc.). The rich can afford it. Soak 'em :-)

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
what is this garbage? the poor tend to be happy when you give them money? you have zero basis for this. people tend to be happy when they earn success. people who are given money tend to be unsatisfied and lazy.
- anaphoric 18y ago
  I said 'happier'. Besides what you do is not give (so much) money to the poor and middle class, but rather tax them less and tax the rich much more. The poor and middle will be happier as they keep more of their earnings and the rich, well, they will be alright.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    well of course the bottom 5th income wise shouldn't pay tax as they contribute less than 1% of tax revenue and receive on average much more in government aid than they pay in taxes. seems like a silly little loop for the money to go in when you could just not tax them. warren buffet has advocated this program.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

taxes wouldn't be an issue if the government adjusted spending to reflect taxes instead of adjusting taxes to reflect spending.

anamax 18y ago

Under the "who should pay for govt?" question is another question - is it good for a large fraction of the population to have essentially no role in paying for govt? Suppose that we could get all of the tax revenue from 1000 people, should we? How about 1%?

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
people who don't pay taxes shouldn't vote. this would actually be an interesting opt out clause to experiment with. you can forgo taxes if you give up suffrage.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  it would be self balancing in a supply demand curve too. the more people that opted out the more power the remaining votes would have until equilibrium was reached between money and votes.

tphyahoo 18y ago

Uh, what if taxes sort of trend up everywhere? And there's hostility towards tax havens? They get cut off from wires, and you have to smuggle in cash / diamonds in suitcases, and it's a total pain in the ass and you become a social pariah? Not saying that should happen, but it could happen. Dumb article.

dejb 18y ago

The article doesn't even seem to acknowledge the existence of economies other than US. If you are trying to propose an economic 'law' then you really need to look at more than one country. In fact there are many other succesful economies that have a higher percentage Tax/GDP ratio than 19.5%

tocomment 18y ago

Finding laws in Economics reminds me of Psychohistory. I wonder if we'll ever have that field.

ntoshev 18y ago
Psychohistory can work in a society very different from ours (and certainly not the one Azimov described). In our society randomness plays too big of a role. Some of the current sources of uncertainty (like technological progress, or the personal freedom we have) may disappear in 1000 years, but this is purely a speculation.

logjam 18y ago

Executive summary: newspaper of the rich arguing for lower taxes for the rich.

learneconomics 18y ago
1. They are doing it with logic. 2. Do you consider the New York Times, or Washington Post, or any other major daily to be the newspaper of the poor? Give me a break.

helveticaman 18y ago

I think this is statistically relevant, as rich Americans pay a big part of taxes: During Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the IRS collected more than $2.2 trillion in tax net of refunds, about 44 percent of which was attributable to the individual income tax. This is partially due to the nature of the individual income tax category; containing taxes collected from working class, small business, self employed, and capital gains. Of the Individual Income Tax, the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of this amount. [8] [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service#Tax_collection_statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service#Tax_co... The top 5% pays 26.4% of tax receipts, and changes in the marginal tax rate for the top bracket usually affect tax rates of lower brackets. I'd say this news is pretty relevant.

tarkin2 18y ago

"What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice." And the Nordic countries, with a highly redistributive state, and some of the highest GDP per capita rates in the world?

chasingsparks 18y ago

Who is John Galt?