6 ms·

One problem is that states-as-laboratories are not closed-loop systems. We have free trade and freedom of movement across state borders. If state A starts usin

One problem is that states-as-laboratories are not closed-loop systems. We have free trade and freedom of movement across state borders. If state A starts using its own tax revenue to house the homeless population, nothing stops states B through Z from then deciding to bus their homeless populations to state A. The other states then don’t have to pay for homeless services, and suddenly state A has a far larger homeless population to house (while its tax revenue hasn’t increased at all).

bhupy 6y ago
> One problem is that states-as-laboratories are not closed-loop systems. We have free trade and freedom of movement across state borders. Both of these are true in Switzerland, as well as the European Union, and yet they are both body politics that are fully capable of effective decentralization.
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  Because the European Union was formed much after the development of European states, and so each state had its own concept of borders, immigration, and social welfare _before_ creation of the EU. And the EU has constantly tussled over the rights of migrant workers from one EU state to the other.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    And Switzerland? Insofar as the EU has issues, it's because power has begun to become too centralized, and there are growing Euroscepticism movements across the Union.
    - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
      Hm? Switzerland also predates the formation of the EU. And the EU has been agitating for and against centralization since the mid 2000s.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Switzerland is a confederation of cantons within which there are open borders. The Swiss federal government only concerns itself with currency, military, and foreign policy — nearly everything else is left to the Cantons, including health, taxation, and infrastructure. Unlike the EU, it has been a fairly stable confederation for nearly 2 centuries now.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  One drastic difference between the US and almost every other system is the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system of representation. A party receiving 5% of the votes in a German vote can receive 5% representation. A candidate winning 49.3% of the vote in a US race wins 0% of the representation for their party. The US system is not built for coalition-building or decentralization. Power is concentrated in the singular candidate rather than the collective party.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    On the surface, you're right, but in all of those systems, you still need a governing majority. In parliamentary systems, coalitions are formed after the election. In America, the coalitions are formed before the election. The two major parties, really, are big tents comprising a handful of minor parties within them. You can see this manifest in the ideological breadth of representatives within the same party, across different constituents. In a parliamentary system, some of those constituents would elect the same representative, just under the banner of a more appropriate political party.
- kn0where 6y ago
  Admittedly my knowledge of Swiss politics is lacking, but I have to imagine that among the cantons there is still much more unity and less ideological distance than there is between, say, California and Texas.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Not necessarily — to give you an example of the variation, the marginal income tax rate in the Canton of Vaud is 26%, while the marginal income tax rate in Zug is 10%[1]. The Federal marginal tax rate is 9%. That means that if you earn 500,000 CHF and live in Zug, your net top marginal tax rate would be approximately 19%, while in Vaud it would be approx 34%. A 78% difference. This is a level of variation that surpasses even the US. While Texas doesn't have an income tax, the net marginal tax rate for a Texan is 37%, while the net marginal tax rate for a Californian is 50.3%, or a more modest 36%, and that's the most extreme in our Union. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Income...

bhupy 6y ago

> One problem is that states-as-laboratories are not closed-loop systems. We have free trade and freedom of movement across state borders. Both of these are true in Switzerland, as well as the European Union, and yet they are both body politics that are fully capable of effective decentralization.

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
Because the European Union was formed much after the development of European states, and so each state had its own concept of borders, immigration, and social welfare _before_ creation of the EU. And the EU has constantly tussled over the rights of migrant workers from one EU state to the other.
- bhupy 6y ago
  And Switzerland? Insofar as the EU has issues, it's because power has begun to become too centralized, and there are growing Euroscepticism movements across the Union.
  - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
    Hm? Switzerland also predates the formation of the EU. And the EU has been agitating for and against centralization since the mid 2000s.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Switzerland is a confederation of cantons within which there are open borders. The Swiss federal government only concerns itself with currency, military, and foreign policy — nearly everything else is left to the Cantons, including health, taxation, and infrastructure. Unlike the EU, it has been a fairly stable confederation for nearly 2 centuries now.
ilikehurdles 6y ago
One drastic difference between the US and almost every other system is the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system of representation. A party receiving 5% of the votes in a German vote can receive 5% representation. A candidate winning 49.3% of the vote in a US race wins 0% of the representation for their party. The US system is not built for coalition-building or decentralization. Power is concentrated in the singular candidate rather than the collective party.
- bhupy 6y ago
  On the surface, you're right, but in all of those systems, you still need a governing majority. In parliamentary systems, coalitions are formed after the election. In America, the coalitions are formed before the election. The two major parties, really, are big tents comprising a handful of minor parties within them. You can see this manifest in the ideological breadth of representatives within the same party, across different constituents. In a parliamentary system, some of those constituents would elect the same representative, just under the banner of a more appropriate political party.
kn0where 6y ago
Admittedly my knowledge of Swiss politics is lacking, but I have to imagine that among the cantons there is still much more unity and less ideological distance than there is between, say, California and Texas.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Not necessarily — to give you an example of the variation, the marginal income tax rate in the Canton of Vaud is 26%, while the marginal income tax rate in Zug is 10%[1]. The Federal marginal tax rate is 9%. That means that if you earn 500,000 CHF and live in Zug, your net top marginal tax rate would be approximately 19%, while in Vaud it would be approx 34%. A 78% difference. This is a level of variation that surpasses even the US. While Texas doesn't have an income tax, the net marginal tax rate for a Texan is 37%, while the net marginal tax rate for a Californian is 50.3%, or a more modest 36%, and that's the most extreme in our Union. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland#Income...