5 ms·

Of course. I should have said freedom of choice. Francois has less choice. About a third of his wages (and 20% of everything he buys) is used for the different

Of course. I should have said freedom of choice. Francois has less choice. About a third of his wages (and 20% of everything he buys) is used for the different types of government support. In return, he has the welfare-state benefits.

vidarh 12y ago
Still bad. I grew up in Norway. I moved to the UK at 25. Employment rights and social welfare in the UK is a joke compared to in Norway - the UK is "US light" in those respects. Yet I felt I had much more freedom of choice in Norway: Becoming truly destitute in Norway is pretty much only possible if you refuse to apply for government support. This, to me, meant I was free to make a lot of decisions without considering consequences that would put me at substantial risk in the UK, and much more so in the US. It is hard to describe the feeling. I've mentioned before, how I started my first company (an ISP) pretty much on a whim because we were dissatisfied with the available ISPs; we threw together a business plan, found an angel investor, found offices and moved into them (literally; three of us lived there for a while) in the span of a few months. During this time, not once did the potential consequences of failing enter my mind, for the simple reason that there'd pretty much not be any consequences: I'd be able to get government support if I needed it, and I'd "just" go back to my studies or find another job. Not really needing to worry about healthcare, or housing, or whether or not you might starve, are important forms of freedom to me. I'd take that over a few percent lower taxes any day, and I'd argue that I get more freedom of choice from those benefits than what few percent more disposable income could buy me in other ways. > About a third of his wages (and 20% of everything he buys) is used for the different types of government support. If Francois makes enough to pay 1/3 of his wages in income taxes, he's earning enough that he'd pay roughly 1/3 of his wages in taxes in many pats of the US too. Sure, if Francois went to live in Utah, he'd be better off, tax wise. If he were to go to California, on the other hand, the difference would be minimal. VAT makes up very little of the typical tax burden. I'm in the UK, and 20% VAT translates to about 4% of my gross wage, because most of my income does not go to products that are taxed at the 20% bracket (for starters, I pay tax with some of them; then I pay my mortgage, and so on; and food is zero-rated). Tax differences are not as great as people tend to think. My tax burden in Norway was about 1-2 percentage points higher than in the UK. A salary giving me the same purchasing power in Silicon Valley, would cut my tax bill by about the same as my added costs for healthcare insurance, and certainly wouldn't cover my increased transport costs... I did the maths for this to excruciating detail because we were considering moving to the US at one point. There may be specific income levels where the differences are more pronounced due to differences in tax policies, and certainly some countries / states are more or less expensive (as I learned the other day: stay clear of Belgium... )
- benjohnson 12y ago
  Norway is an outlier - much of it's government services are funded by petrodollars and temporary deforestation.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    That is completely irrelevant to the argument. Replace Norway with Sweden or Denmark. Or for that matter France or Germany or any number of other European countries. The argument would be exactly the same: That strong welfare systems can provide more freedom of choice by removing a lot of concerns that you have to consider when those systems are not available.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    The 2013 budget had a deficit of 3.3%, which it used capital from the oil fund to fill. The biggest deficit that they are allowed to have - and to cover with that kind of money - is 4.0%. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
    - benjohnson 12y ago
      In addition to the direct 3.3% - Norway's petrochemical economy provide 36% of government funding through taxes. In addition, 445 Billion dollars from the oil fund is in reserve for pensions. Simply put, the Norway model is not repeatable unless you're have a natural resource reserve. One could argue that the US shale reserves should be used in similar fashion.
      - Dewie 12y ago
        > In addition to the direct 3.3% - Norway's petrochemical economy provide 36% of government funding through taxes. That is a pretty big industry. Crude petroleum and crude gas consists of over 50% of exports. A lot of economical activity leads to a lot of tax revenue. Imagine if this industry did not exist, that the petroleum simply did not exist to begin with - the people that work in this industry now would be working in other sectors and industries. (The real problem is to replace this industry with something else once the well dries up. But that is a problem brought by such a big oil industry, not a problem that exists in spite of it). > In addition, 445 Billion dollars from the oil fund is in reserve for pensions. I think the whole point of the fund(s) is for them to be pension funds. But it may vary how strictly they are ear marked. Now you're undermining your original point of the oil sector subsidizing the budget. The whole point of the Pension Fund is so that the incumbent government can't go on a spending spree and leave the future generations in the mud.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
What you call "choice" is empty of meaning or significant because you leave out the very relevant context in which that "choice" may be exercised. For example, it's dishonest to say a person with $20,000 in savings has the "choice" to pay cash or take a mortgage for a $200,000. Such "choice" is not real or meaningful, because it can't really be exercised. Likewise, it's dishonest to suggest that "choice" in America is not correlated strongly to income and wealth. The lower one's income and means, the fewer real, meaningful choices one has about a great many things--including medical care, food, housing, and basically everything else humans need to subsist. I have lived in every income spectrum up through my current one--from severe poverty to relative affluence. One of the most important observations I've made is how little "freedom of choice" there is the further down the socioeconomic ladder one goes in this country. It's just an empty phrase most often spouted by people who have never known anything other than a life of upper-middle-class or better living.
- digitalengineer 12y ago
  Well, we were discussing Bubba and François not homepess people. > ...by people who have never known anything other than a life of upper-middle-class or better living. Is it? I would not know what you're talking about as I grew up during the '80 recession and my family was on welfare. I am glad I was able to go to a university in part thanks to gouvernement student-aid in a not so expensive city.
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    Well, "most often" isn't "always", and that your family was on welfare doesn't mean anything with respect to the fact that you seem to not understand how empty the phrase "freedom of choice" is. The one has nothing to do with the other.

vidarh 12y ago

Still bad. I grew up in Norway. I moved to the UK at 25. Employment rights and social welfare in the UK is a joke compared to in Norway - the UK is "US light" in those respects. Yet I felt I had much more freedom of choice in Norway: Becoming truly destitute in Norway is pretty much only possible if you refuse to apply for government support. This, to me, meant I was free to make a lot of decisions without considering consequences that would put me at substantial risk in the UK, and much more so in the US. It is hard to describe the feeling. I've mentioned before, how I started my first company (an ISP) pretty much on a whim because we were dissatisfied with the available ISPs; we threw together a business plan, found an angel investor, found offices and moved into them (literally; three of us lived there for a while) in the span of a few months. During this time, not once did the potential consequences of failing enter my mind, for the simple reason that there'd pretty much not be any consequences: I'd be able to get government support if I needed it, and I'd "just" go back to my studies or find another job. Not really needing to worry about healthcare, or housing, or whether or not you might starve, are important forms of freedom to me. I'd take that over a few percent lower taxes any day, and I'd argue that I get more freedom of choice from those benefits than what few percent more disposable income could buy me in other ways. > About a third of his wages (and 20% of everything he buys) is used for the different types of government support. If Francois makes enough to pay 1/3 of his wages in income taxes, he's earning enough that he'd pay roughly 1/3 of his wages in taxes in many pats of the US too. Sure, if Francois went to live in Utah, he'd be better off, tax wise. If he were to go to California, on the other hand, the difference would be minimal. VAT makes up very little of the typical tax burden. I'm in the UK, and 20% VAT translates to about 4% of my gross wage, because most of my income does not go to products that are taxed at the 20% bracket (for starters, I pay tax with some of them; then I pay my mortgage, and so on; and food is zero-rated). Tax differences are not as great as people tend to think. My tax burden in Norway was about 1-2 percentage points higher than in the UK. A salary giving me the same purchasing power in Silicon Valley, would cut my tax bill by about the same as my added costs for healthcare insurance, and certainly wouldn't cover my increased transport costs... I did the maths for this to excruciating detail because we were considering moving to the US at one point. There may be specific income levels where the differences are more pronounced due to differences in tax policies, and certainly some countries / states are more or less expensive (as I learned the other day: stay clear of Belgium... )

benjohnson 12y ago
Norway is an outlier - much of it's government services are funded by petrodollars and temporary deforestation.
- vidarh 12y ago
  That is completely irrelevant to the argument. Replace Norway with Sweden or Denmark. Or for that matter France or Germany or any number of other European countries. The argument would be exactly the same: That strong welfare systems can provide more freedom of choice by removing a lot of concerns that you have to consider when those systems are not available.
- Dewie 12y ago
  The 2013 budget had a deficit of 3.3%, which it used capital from the oil fund to fill. The biggest deficit that they are allowed to have - and to cover with that kind of money - is 4.0%. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
  - benjohnson 12y ago
    In addition to the direct 3.3% - Norway's petrochemical economy provide 36% of government funding through taxes. In addition, 445 Billion dollars from the oil fund is in reserve for pensions. Simply put, the Norway model is not repeatable unless you're have a natural resource reserve. One could argue that the US shale reserves should be used in similar fashion.
    - Dewie 12y ago
      > In addition to the direct 3.3% - Norway's petrochemical economy provide 36% of government funding through taxes. That is a pretty big industry. Crude petroleum and crude gas consists of over 50% of exports. A lot of economical activity leads to a lot of tax revenue. Imagine if this industry did not exist, that the petroleum simply did not exist to begin with - the people that work in this industry now would be working in other sectors and industries. (The real problem is to replace this industry with something else once the well dries up. But that is a problem brought by such a big oil industry, not a problem that exists in spite of it). > In addition, 445 Billion dollars from the oil fund is in reserve for pensions. I think the whole point of the fund(s) is for them to be pension funds. But it may vary how strictly they are ear marked. Now you're undermining your original point of the oil sector subsidizing the budget. The whole point of the Pension Fund is so that the incumbent government can't go on a spending spree and leave the future generations in the mud.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

What you call "choice" is empty of meaning or significant because you leave out the very relevant context in which that "choice" may be exercised. For example, it's dishonest to say a person with $20,000 in savings has the "choice" to pay cash or take a mortgage for a $200,000. Such "choice" is not real or meaningful, because it can't really be exercised. Likewise, it's dishonest to suggest that "choice" in America is not correlated strongly to income and wealth. The lower one's income and means, the fewer real, meaningful choices one has about a great many things--including medical care, food, housing, and basically everything else humans need to subsist. I have lived in every income spectrum up through my current one--from severe poverty to relative affluence. One of the most important observations I've made is how little "freedom of choice" there is the further down the socioeconomic ladder one goes in this country. It's just an empty phrase most often spouted by people who have never known anything other than a life of upper-middle-class or better living.

digitalengineer 12y ago
Well, we were discussing Bubba and François not homepess people. > ...by people who have never known anything other than a life of upper-middle-class or better living. Is it? I would not know what you're talking about as I grew up during the '80 recession and my family was on welfare. I am glad I was able to go to a university in part thanks to gouvernement student-aid in a not so expensive city.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  Well, "most often" isn't "always", and that your family was on welfare doesn't mean anything with respect to the fact that you seem to not understand how empty the phrase "freedom of choice" is. The one has nothing to do with the other.