4 ms·

I don't get how some people seem to think that there's only two possible political systems in the world. When I say redistributive, I mean things like progress

by badsock 11y ago

I don't get how some people seem to think that there's only two possible political systems in the world. When I say redistributive, I mean things like progressive taxation, estate taxes, and basic income. In terms of median household income, the US places 6th in the world (and dropping), behind 5 countries whose taxation systems are significantly more progressive, so I dispute your claim of "equal levels of misery": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income I really do understand that incentives matter, and that progressive taxation is also progressively disincentivizing. However, the countries in the world that have a better quality of life for the majority of their people are to the left of America, not to the right. And I'm more swayed by data than abstract economic theories.

lotharbot 11y ago
since your argument is about the effect of taxes, "median household income ... before deduction of taxes" (which is what the wikipedia page shows) isn't really a useful metric.
- badsock 11y ago
  You are 100% correct, thanks! Here's a more appropriate link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-home_pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... The US is 7th, behind a very similar group of steep-progressive-tax countries. I would say an even better metric is median quality of life indicators (which tell a similar story of the US trailing left-wing countries) but that's an understandably more controversial index.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    A further nitpick: pretty much any index of this sort (particularly QoL) also has to be corrected for demographic trends -- the US absorbs around 20% of the world's total immigrant population [0], and the majority come from much poorer countries (#33 Mexico, not-even-ranked China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc. [1]) Those are countries with much worse economies, health care outcomes, education systems, etc. -- all of which have significant effects on both "median" and "average" numbers for measures of the US as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
    - badsock 11y ago
      13% of the population of the US is immigrants; for Sweden it's 14%, and Norway it's 13% (source: Wikipedia).
      - lotharbot 11y ago
        Sweden gets around 10% of its immigrants [0] from Finland, which is nearly tied with it in the net take-home pay list above. Sweden gets an additional >10% of its immigrants from countries above it in the net take-home pay list, or more than 20% total from top-20 countries. The US, on the other hand, gets the vast majority of its immigrants from much poorer countries [1]. The US gets around 7% of its immigrants from top-20 countries. Particularly when it comes to median statistics, adding people at the bottom of the scale is going to skew the stats. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Country_of_origin_for_persons_born_abroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Country_... [1] http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population#birth http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-populat...
        badsock 11y ago
        Thanks for the data! From the same site as your second link: http://cis.org/node/3877 http://cis.org/node/3877 If you look at table 29, immigrants make 93% as much income as natives nation-wide. Given that they account for only 13% of the population, that means that they represent less than a percent of income reduction nation-wide. Admittedly I'm talking mean not median here, but I'm not buying the argument that a regular person in the most powerful economy on the planet is having a harder time than the ones in the tiny countries of Australia, Belgium, and Germany because of a 1% drag on national income. Americans have forgone universal health care, a strong social safety net, free or cheap higher education, all in the pursuit of a better economy and higher personal incomes. Lots of leftist countries haven't had to make that sacrifice, and yet even if you added 1% to the per capita income of Americans, they'd still be at least in the same ballpark, if not still ahead. From where I stand, that was not a good trade.
        11y ago
paulhauggis 11y ago
"behind 5 countries whose taxation systems are significantly more progressive, so I dispute your claim of "equal levels of misery":" Maybe not equal levels of misery, but significantly less purchasing power (In Australia for instance, a small bag of chips and a 20 oz. of coke is $11 at the local 7-11 when I was there last year), less innovation, and less freedom beyond a corporate 9-5. When it takes a court case to fire an employee and taxes and restrictions are that large, how can 3 people in a dorm room possibly build a successful company? It's also pretty telling when venture capitalists pretty much avoid any of those countries. Here are average wages in Sweden for instance (2012): http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sweden-by-occupation/ http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sw... "estate tax and basic income" Everything you mentioned are just schemes for redistributing wealth. It's exactly what the op said they don't want. If I work my entire life to build my fortunes, why should the government get a large percentage before my family? I see it no different than theft.
- badsock 11y ago
  I dispute your purchasing power argument: http://www.statista.com/statistics/226956/average-world-wages-in-purchasing-power-parity-dollars/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/226956/average-world-wage... You'll note that Austria and Norway beat the US, and Sweden and Finland are in the ballpark. I'm not arguing about innovation or "freedom", I'm arguing about a better society - one with less crime, better social mobility, etc. - for the average person. Not the Internet startup lotto winner. And the government doesn't "get" a large percentage of your income - they don't keep any of it. Your fellow citizens get it. It goes to pay for the huge amount of infrastructure that you used while amassing your fortune (court system, transporation system, an educated healthy population to draw employees from, etc.). You view taxation as theft. I view people who use infrastructure and then don't want to contribute back as welchers.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "I'm arguing about a better society - one with less crime, better social mobility, etc." Those countries have less crime because they are very strict on immigration. Many people come to the US and instead of creating a new life and a new culture, keep the broken culture from the county they left, and in many cases, means an increase in crime. It's also easier to maintain because those countries have as many people as a large city in the US..so the comparison isn't really fair. "It goes to pay for the huge amount of infrastructure that you used while amassing your fortune (court system, transporation system, an educated healthy population to draw employees from, etc.)." Those are already paid through many other taxes, so this isn't really a valid reason. Most people that are wealthy already paid many more in taxes than they will ever use. Where did all that money go? "You view taxation as theft. I view people who use infrastructure and then don't want to contribute back as welchers." I view an estate tax as theft, not taxes in general. Stop putting words in my mouth to fit your agenda. Let me guess: You are in your early-mid 20s and don't have a lot of wealth? I run 2 very successful businesses and pay way more money in taxes than most people make in a year...and will continue to pay more in taxes than I will ever take from the system. We also don't really have any government accountability. If we could actually track where our money was going, there might not be all of this need to take more. "better social mobility" How do you think we achieve social mobility? One of the best ways is to start a company. You don't even need an education. In the US, you can pay less than $50 in most states to make your company official..or even just run it under your own name as a sole-proprietorship. In all of the countries you mention, there is virtually no social mobility and pretty much the only place to get a job is either at a large corporation or for the government. And lastly, I just don't trust the government to manage my tax money that well.

by badsock 11y ago

lotharbot 11y ago

since your argument is about the effect of taxes, "median household income ... before deduction of taxes" (which is what the wikipedia page shows) isn't really a useful metric.

badsock 11y ago
You are 100% correct, thanks! Here's a more appropriate link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-home_pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... The US is 7th, behind a very similar group of steep-progressive-tax countries. I would say an even better metric is median quality of life indicators (which tell a similar story of the US trailing left-wing countries) but that's an understandably more controversial index.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  A further nitpick: pretty much any index of this sort (particularly QoL) also has to be corrected for demographic trends -- the US absorbs around 20% of the world's total immigrant population [0], and the majority come from much poorer countries (#33 Mexico, not-even-ranked China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc. [1]) Those are countries with much worse economies, health care outcomes, education systems, etc. -- all of which have significant effects on both "median" and "average" numbers for measures of the US as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
  - badsock 11y ago
    13% of the population of the US is immigrants; for Sweden it's 14%, and Norway it's 13% (source: Wikipedia).
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      Sweden gets around 10% of its immigrants [0] from Finland, which is nearly tied with it in the net take-home pay list above. Sweden gets an additional >10% of its immigrants from countries above it in the net take-home pay list, or more than 20% total from top-20 countries. The US, on the other hand, gets the vast majority of its immigrants from much poorer countries [1]. The US gets around 7% of its immigrants from top-20 countries. Particularly when it comes to median statistics, adding people at the bottom of the scale is going to skew the stats. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Country_of_origin_for_persons_born_abroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Country_... [1] http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population#birth http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-populat...
      - badsock 11y ago
        Thanks for the data! From the same site as your second link: http://cis.org/node/3877 http://cis.org/node/3877 If you look at table 29, immigrants make 93% as much income as natives nation-wide. Given that they account for only 13% of the population, that means that they represent less than a percent of income reduction nation-wide. Admittedly I'm talking mean not median here, but I'm not buying the argument that a regular person in the most powerful economy on the planet is having a harder time than the ones in the tiny countries of Australia, Belgium, and Germany because of a 1% drag on national income. Americans have forgone universal health care, a strong social safety net, free or cheap higher education, all in the pursuit of a better economy and higher personal incomes. Lots of leftist countries haven't had to make that sacrifice, and yet even if you added 1% to the per capita income of Americans, they'd still be at least in the same ballpark, if not still ahead. From where I stand, that was not a good trade.
        11y ago

paulhauggis 11y ago

"behind 5 countries whose taxation systems are significantly more progressive, so I dispute your claim of "equal levels of misery":" Maybe not equal levels of misery, but significantly less purchasing power (In Australia for instance, a small bag of chips and a 20 oz. of coke is $11 at the local 7-11 when I was there last year), less innovation, and less freedom beyond a corporate 9-5. When it takes a court case to fire an employee and taxes and restrictions are that large, how can 3 people in a dorm room possibly build a successful company? It's also pretty telling when venture capitalists pretty much avoid any of those countries. Here are average wages in Sweden for instance (2012): http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sweden-by-occupation/ http://lostinstockholm.com/2012/01/10/average-salaries-in-sw... "estate tax and basic income" Everything you mentioned are just schemes for redistributing wealth. It's exactly what the op said they don't want. If I work my entire life to build my fortunes, why should the government get a large percentage before my family? I see it no different than theft.

badsock 11y ago
I dispute your purchasing power argument: http://www.statista.com/statistics/226956/average-world-wages-in-purchasing-power-parity-dollars/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/226956/average-world-wage... You'll note that Austria and Norway beat the US, and Sweden and Finland are in the ballpark. I'm not arguing about innovation or "freedom", I'm arguing about a better society - one with less crime, better social mobility, etc. - for the average person. Not the Internet startup lotto winner. And the government doesn't "get" a large percentage of your income - they don't keep any of it. Your fellow citizens get it. It goes to pay for the huge amount of infrastructure that you used while amassing your fortune (court system, transporation system, an educated healthy population to draw employees from, etc.). You view taxation as theft. I view people who use infrastructure and then don't want to contribute back as welchers.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "I'm arguing about a better society - one with less crime, better social mobility, etc." Those countries have less crime because they are very strict on immigration. Many people come to the US and instead of creating a new life and a new culture, keep the broken culture from the county they left, and in many cases, means an increase in crime. It's also easier to maintain because those countries have as many people as a large city in the US..so the comparison isn't really fair. "It goes to pay for the huge amount of infrastructure that you used while amassing your fortune (court system, transporation system, an educated healthy population to draw employees from, etc.)." Those are already paid through many other taxes, so this isn't really a valid reason. Most people that are wealthy already paid many more in taxes than they will ever use. Where did all that money go? "You view taxation as theft. I view people who use infrastructure and then don't want to contribute back as welchers." I view an estate tax as theft, not taxes in general. Stop putting words in my mouth to fit your agenda. Let me guess: You are in your early-mid 20s and don't have a lot of wealth? I run 2 very successful businesses and pay way more money in taxes than most people make in a year...and will continue to pay more in taxes than I will ever take from the system. We also don't really have any government accountability. If we could actually track where our money was going, there might not be all of this need to take more. "better social mobility" How do you think we achieve social mobility? One of the best ways is to start a company. You don't even need an education. In the US, you can pay less than $50 in most states to make your company official..or even just run it under your own name as a sole-proprietorship. In all of the countries you mention, there is virtually no social mobility and pretty much the only place to get a job is either at a large corporation or for the government. And lastly, I just don't trust the government to manage my tax money that well.