4 ms·

> And a lot it is written from the perspective that large corporations are the only ones who do business throughout the EU. It's completely missed that small en

> And a lot it is written from the perspective that large corporations are the only ones who do business throughout the EU. It's completely missed that small entrepreneurs may also want to take part. I'm not convinced that's an accident. I think politicians in Europe are just better than those in the US at hiding who they really work for. There are numerous examples of regulations in many European countries that create a glass ceiling for anyone who strives to be more than just middle-middle-class, while creating effective loopholes for the wealthy to continue multiplying their wealth. For example, the total (State + Federal) top tax rate for someone living in California or New York is not too different (maybe 2-3%) from someone living in France or Sweden. But the difference is that in California the top rate does not kick in until you earn north of $1M per year, while in Sweden or France the middle class is already paying those rates. Likewise, in the US you cannot (legally) shelter your income by declaring it to be foreign income, as you can in most European countries. That is a tax dodge not applicable to the middle class. And then we have the present discussion: The compliance costs are of course too high for any small business, so these regulations are just another form of regulatory capture to prevent anyone new from breaking into the upper class, while allowing those already there to have it easy.

teiferer 1mo ago
It's a success of the upper class to pit the middle class against the lower class and the immigrants. As long as people on one "side" complain that there is too much foreign culture and they'll all be replaced and/raped and the other "side" sees the racists as their main enemy, the rich have an easy time.
- spwa4 1mo ago
  That sounds like a good argument, but if you look at government budgets and where come from and where they go that is not at all what is happening. I mean, there is a core of truth in that the rules allow the upper class to go less-taxed (generally not untaxed). But let's be honest here. If the upper class paid 60% on their income instead of 10%, it would improve government budgets by less than 1% (disregarding things like royal families that own oil company profits or rent out incredible amounts of terrible housing (UK) at essentially 0% tax as a specific exemption in the law) Which means taxing the rich can make the rich poorer than they currently are and bring more equality. Which is a goal in itself. But it cannot fund EU governments. It cannot fund pensions. Not even a little bit. Everyone knows what the big problem is: right now close to 35% of working people in the EU work, one way or another (usually in bureaucracies, granted), to take care of children, sick, unemployed or elderly non-working people. Of those groups, the elderly group is going up by about 3% every year, and that will keep going until 2050 or later. In the group of working people there is extreme resistance to actually work with the elderly (meaning physically helping elderly people, those jobs are low-status, low-paid, and generally hated with a passion), even against teaching jobs there is quite a bit of resistance (dropout rates are double digit percentages). So how do we take care of the elderly? Hell: how do we take care of kids? This problem alone makes me say "we don't just want AI to take our jobs, we NEED AI to take our jobs". Because "we" are sure as hell not going to take them. That doesn't preclude that this needs to be regulated, but obviously just saying no to AI is not what we want. And that's putting it politely.
- tsss 1mo ago
  Immigration is a separate problem.
  - teiferer 1mo ago
    It should be a separate topic, yes. But calling it a "problem" is already the framing that pits locals against immigrants, distracting from what's really keeping people down. In fact, immigration is a solution to lots of actual problems. (For example demography and lack of economi growth.)
    - Mountain_Skies 1mo ago
      What is the solution to your demand for infinite growth on a planet of finite resources? Sounds like you use immigrants as a shield for your desire to get yours' before the resources run out and the line can't go up anymore.
      - teiferer 1mo ago
        > What is the solution to your demand for infinite growth on a planet of finite resources? Um I wrote "lots of problems", not "all problems". Nor did I require infinite growth, not sure where you read that. Though on a planet with finite resources, what is the point of encouraging women in the west to have more kids because the population needs to be growing again, if otherplace has still more (population) growth than they can handle, so one thing could alleviate the other, win-win. If we were less racist, that is. It also depends a little on the definition of "growth" of course. Physical growth of course has limits. But services can always improve, so you can get "growth" without more stuff. Depends on what and how you count. Or you build rockets and go interplanetary, but that's mostly a solution for the Musk cult which I'm not subscribing to. > Sounds like you use immigrants as a shield for your desire to get yours' before the resources run out and the line can't go up anymore. I don't get what you are insinuating.
    - tsss 1mo ago
      Yes, I am pitting locals against immigrants and I am calling them a problem, which they are. Immigration is absolutely disastrous for the average citizen who has to compete for housing and jobs. Economic growth is pointless if it's only achieved by population growth. It is the wealth per person that counts, which will surely decrease when you import millions of people with few employable skills and their non-working families. Demography is only a problem because our social systems are completely unsustainable pyramid schemes reliant on endless population growth. Every day that you try to delay its inevitable collapse with immigration will only make the problem worse down the line.
alexanderchr 1mo ago
> Likewise, in the US you cannot (legally) shelter your income by declaring it to be foreign income, as you can in most European countries. Not sure what you mean, most European countries tax residents on worldwide income. You certainly can’t just declare income as foreign and be done with it. Some countries (notably UK) had loopholes for non-domiciled residents but they are being closed now.

teiferer 1mo ago

It's a success of the upper class to pit the middle class against the lower class and the immigrants. As long as people on one "side" complain that there is too much foreign culture and they'll all be replaced and/raped and the other "side" sees the racists as their main enemy, the rich have an easy time.

spwa4 1mo ago
That sounds like a good argument, but if you look at government budgets and where come from and where they go that is not at all what is happening. I mean, there is a core of truth in that the rules allow the upper class to go less-taxed (generally not untaxed). But let's be honest here. If the upper class paid 60% on their income instead of 10%, it would improve government budgets by less than 1% (disregarding things like royal families that own oil company profits or rent out incredible amounts of terrible housing (UK) at essentially 0% tax as a specific exemption in the law) Which means taxing the rich can make the rich poorer than they currently are and bring more equality. Which is a goal in itself. But it cannot fund EU governments. It cannot fund pensions. Not even a little bit. Everyone knows what the big problem is: right now close to 35% of working people in the EU work, one way or another (usually in bureaucracies, granted), to take care of children, sick, unemployed or elderly non-working people. Of those groups, the elderly group is going up by about 3% every year, and that will keep going until 2050 or later. In the group of working people there is extreme resistance to actually work with the elderly (meaning physically helping elderly people, those jobs are low-status, low-paid, and generally hated with a passion), even against teaching jobs there is quite a bit of resistance (dropout rates are double digit percentages). So how do we take care of the elderly? Hell: how do we take care of kids? This problem alone makes me say "we don't just want AI to take our jobs, we NEED AI to take our jobs". Because "we" are sure as hell not going to take them. That doesn't preclude that this needs to be regulated, but obviously just saying no to AI is not what we want. And that's putting it politely.
tsss 1mo ago
Immigration is a separate problem.
- teiferer 1mo ago
  It should be a separate topic, yes. But calling it a "problem" is already the framing that pits locals against immigrants, distracting from what's really keeping people down. In fact, immigration is a solution to lots of actual problems. (For example demography and lack of economi growth.)
  - Mountain_Skies 1mo ago
    What is the solution to your demand for infinite growth on a planet of finite resources? Sounds like you use immigrants as a shield for your desire to get yours' before the resources run out and the line can't go up anymore.
    - teiferer 1mo ago
      > What is the solution to your demand for infinite growth on a planet of finite resources? Um I wrote "lots of problems", not "all problems". Nor did I require infinite growth, not sure where you read that. Though on a planet with finite resources, what is the point of encouraging women in the west to have more kids because the population needs to be growing again, if otherplace has still more (population) growth than they can handle, so one thing could alleviate the other, win-win. If we were less racist, that is. It also depends a little on the definition of "growth" of course. Physical growth of course has limits. But services can always improve, so you can get "growth" without more stuff. Depends on what and how you count. Or you build rockets and go interplanetary, but that's mostly a solution for the Musk cult which I'm not subscribing to. > Sounds like you use immigrants as a shield for your desire to get yours' before the resources run out and the line can't go up anymore. I don't get what you are insinuating.
  - tsss 1mo ago
    Yes, I am pitting locals against immigrants and I am calling them a problem, which they are. Immigration is absolutely disastrous for the average citizen who has to compete for housing and jobs. Economic growth is pointless if it's only achieved by population growth. It is the wealth per person that counts, which will surely decrease when you import millions of people with few employable skills and their non-working families. Demography is only a problem because our social systems are completely unsustainable pyramid schemes reliant on endless population growth. Every day that you try to delay its inevitable collapse with immigration will only make the problem worse down the line.

alexanderchr 1mo ago

> Likewise, in the US you cannot (legally) shelter your income by declaring it to be foreign income, as you can in most European countries. Not sure what you mean, most European countries tax residents on worldwide income. You certainly can’t just declare income as foreign and be done with it. Some countries (notably UK) had loopholes for non-domiciled residents but they are being closed now.