5 ms·

That is, if the Chinese government was short-sighted enough to tax it at their current rates. I can't imagine that they don't see the benefit to the laissez-fa

by hodwik 11y ago

That is, if the Chinese government was short-sighted enough to tax it at their current rates. I can't imagine that they don't see the benefit to the laissez-faire economy. They just can't admit that there's a benefit, it goes against the party line. If they didn't see the benefit I'd have to believe they'd be doing more to capture those assets.

fweespeech 11y ago
> That is, if the Chinese government was short-sighted enough to tax it at their current rates. http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables China's tax burden as a % of GDP is lower than the US. United States 24.3% of GDP China 19.4% of GDP Businesses that can't function in that environment aren't sustainable at any reasonable tax level.
- elipsey 11y ago
  I must confess that when I saw a citation to the Heritage Foundation, I felt obliged to verify this through other sources; it seems about right. Also, it's an interesting exercise to view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... which has a table is sortable by rate. You can see, for example, which states get revenue from oil, and have very low taxes but perhaps little incentive to diversify, and other interesting stuff. Looking at the extremes really makes me wonder how some societies operate.
- hodwik 11y ago
  That does not measure how effective that spending is, or how burdensome for the individual. The US has higher taxes as a percentage of GDP, but we also have significantly more effective spending of said tax revenue. That lowers the 'effective burden' of that tax rate. Also, the comparative poverty of the Chinese populace makes that tax-rate significantly more painful to the people paying it. While China has lower taxes as percent of GDP, the 'effective burden' is higher as the government provides little value to the general populace, and takes a considerable amount of their purchasing power away.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > While China has lower taxes as percent of GDP, the 'effective burden' is higher as the government provides little value to the general populace, and takes a considerable amount of their purchasing power away. Given we have pretty thoroughly defunded things like the VA, IRS, highways, etc. I'm really not sure why you are convinced China is extremely terrible.
    - hodwik 11y ago
      The US spends about half ($1 Trillion) of our federal taxes directly on Healthcare programs, between Medicaid and Medicare. We can afford to do that because of broad private-industry spending in R&D, Universities, Telecom, and other forms of central infrastructure. The value that those programs provide to our population are measurable and direct. China, on the other hand, still having widespread government ownership of the economy, spends a significant portion of it's taxes on managing (mismanaging) their infrastructure and intellectual resources. That unfortunately only leaves about 6% of their $2.2 Trillion budget for healthcare, all the while, not having a private healthcare industry to fill the gaps. If you've been paying attention to China at all in the last few years, you would be well aware of their many literal bridges to nowhere, empty cities, and "san gong" spending. Zhu Lijia, a professor of clear governance at the Chinese Academy of Governance 国家行政学院, puts "san gong" spending (or spending on luxury yachts, private planes, lavish dinners, etc.) at 1 trillion yuan, or 30% of total government expenditure.
      - fweespeech 11y ago
        > The US spends about half ($1 Trillion) of our federal taxes directly on Healthcare programs, between Medicaid and Medicare. http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/ http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-fin... 23% of the Budget http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... Receipts for 2014 was ~$3 Trillion. http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-fede... > Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies -- together accounted for 24 percent of the budget in 2014, or $836 billion. 1) So how exactly did you conclude "half"? 2) Where exactly did you get $1 trillion from? Even with four programs which are often confused into just "Medicare and Medicaid" we don't hit that number. 3) How can you expect me to take you seriously at this point? ----- > We can afford to do that because of broad private-industry spending in R&D, Universities, Telecom, and other forms of central infrastructure. The value that those programs provide to our population are measurable and direct. http://chinaglobalinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/China-RD-Spending.pdf http://chinaglobalinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chi... > China’s investment in research and development (R&D) is second only to the United States. Here, we analyse the data to give a snapshot of how and where the money is spent. By Xiaole Ni. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2015/05/24/did-china-just-launch-worlds-biggest-spending-plan/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2015/05/24/did-china... > Wednesday, the Chinese central government announced both the allocation of 1.13 trillion yuan ($185.8 billion) for upgrading internet infrastructure and the creation of a 124.3 billion yuan fund for affordable housing. These expenditures follow Monday’s authorization of six new rail lines costing 250 billion yuan. ----- > China, on the other hand, still having widespread government ownership of the economy, spends a significant portion of it's taxes on managing (mismanaging) their infrastructure and intellectual resources. That unfortunately only leaves about 6% of their $2.2 Trillion budget for healthcare, all the while, not having a private healthcare industry to fill the gaps. If you've been paying attention to China at all in the last few years, you would be well aware of their many literal bridges to nowhere, empty cities, and "san gong" spending. Look, the gap isn't "mismanagement" its simply the fact they are per-person poorer than other nations and the US simply has to spend ridiculous amounts to get "average" results. You can't, mathematically, spend 17% of your GDP on healthcare without US level incomes and still pay for everything else. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-29/china-health-care-spending-may-hit-1-trillion-by-2020 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-29/china-heal... > Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care spending in China will almost triple to $1 trillion annually by 2020 driven by an aging population and government efforts to broaden insurance coverage, according to a McKinsey & Co. report. > China will spend more on drugs, medical devices and hospital treatments as it lifts spending to 7 percent of gross domestic product, from 5.5 percent, or $350 billion, in 2010, McKinsey said yesterday. This will make it the biggest market globally by 2020 after the U.S., which in 2009 spent $2.5 trillion, or 17.6 percent of its GDP, on health care, said the consulting company. Seems to me, they are catching up as fast as a low-per-capita income country cound for healthcare spending. The sheer waste in the US healthcare system is truly phenomenal compared to its quality. I have an uncle who is a doctor who is literally planning to retire to another country because he believes he can get better quality care for a third of the price as well as a lower cost of living. Quoting the US's outrageous spending as a percentage of GDP as "good" is nuts. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wba... The UK spends ~9.1% which is all China needs to reach as it becomes possible for them to get a quality, first world healthcare system. They don't need to spend 17.1% of GDP like the US does. Its obscene how badly mismanaged the US's system is. Hell, Israel is at 7.4%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06... > The United Kingdom, which spends just $3,405 per person on health care, placed first overall in the comparison of 11 nations that include Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, France, Germany and others. (Previous surveys examined smaller numbers of nations.) In 2004, the U.K. ranked third of the five nations studied.

by hodwik 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

> That is, if the Chinese government was short-sighted enough to tax it at their current rates. http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables http://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables China's tax burden as a % of GDP is lower than the US. United States 24.3% of GDP China 19.4% of GDP Businesses that can't function in that environment aren't sustainable at any reasonable tax level.

elipsey 11y ago
I must confess that when I saw a citation to the Heritage Foundation, I felt obliged to verify this through other sources; it seems about right. Also, it's an interesting exercise to view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... which has a table is sortable by rate. You can see, for example, which states get revenue from oil, and have very low taxes but perhaps little incentive to diversify, and other interesting stuff. Looking at the extremes really makes me wonder how some societies operate.
hodwik 11y ago
That does not measure how effective that spending is, or how burdensome for the individual. The US has higher taxes as a percentage of GDP, but we also have significantly more effective spending of said tax revenue. That lowers the 'effective burden' of that tax rate. Also, the comparative poverty of the Chinese populace makes that tax-rate significantly more painful to the people paying it. While China has lower taxes as percent of GDP, the 'effective burden' is higher as the government provides little value to the general populace, and takes a considerable amount of their purchasing power away.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > While China has lower taxes as percent of GDP, the 'effective burden' is higher as the government provides little value to the general populace, and takes a considerable amount of their purchasing power away. Given we have pretty thoroughly defunded things like the VA, IRS, highways, etc. I'm really not sure why you are convinced China is extremely terrible.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    The US spends about half ($1 Trillion) of our federal taxes directly on Healthcare programs, between Medicaid and Medicare. We can afford to do that because of broad private-industry spending in R&D, Universities, Telecom, and other forms of central infrastructure. The value that those programs provide to our population are measurable and direct. China, on the other hand, still having widespread government ownership of the economy, spends a significant portion of it's taxes on managing (mismanaging) their infrastructure and intellectual resources. That unfortunately only leaves about 6% of their $2.2 Trillion budget for healthcare, all the while, not having a private healthcare industry to fill the gaps. If you've been paying attention to China at all in the last few years, you would be well aware of their many literal bridges to nowhere, empty cities, and "san gong" spending. Zhu Lijia, a professor of clear governance at the Chinese Academy of Governance 国家行政学院, puts "san gong" spending (or spending on luxury yachts, private planes, lavish dinners, etc.) at 1 trillion yuan, or 30% of total government expenditure.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      > The US spends about half ($1 Trillion) of our federal taxes directly on Healthcare programs, between Medicaid and Medicare. http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/ http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-fin... 23% of the Budget http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... Receipts for 2014 was ~$3 Trillion. http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-fede... > Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies -- together accounted for 24 percent of the budget in 2014, or $836 billion. 1) So how exactly did you conclude "half"? 2) Where exactly did you get $1 trillion from? Even with four programs which are often confused into just "Medicare and Medicaid" we don't hit that number. 3) How can you expect me to take you seriously at this point? ----- > We can afford to do that because of broad private-industry spending in R&D, Universities, Telecom, and other forms of central infrastructure. The value that those programs provide to our population are measurable and direct. http://chinaglobalinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/China-RD-Spending.pdf http://chinaglobalinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chi... > China’s investment in research and development (R&D) is second only to the United States. Here, we analyse the data to give a snapshot of how and where the money is spent. By Xiaole Ni. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2015/05/24/did-china-just-launch-worlds-biggest-spending-plan/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2015/05/24/did-china... > Wednesday, the Chinese central government announced both the allocation of 1.13 trillion yuan ($185.8 billion) for upgrading internet infrastructure and the creation of a 124.3 billion yuan fund for affordable housing. These expenditures follow Monday’s authorization of six new rail lines costing 250 billion yuan. ----- > China, on the other hand, still having widespread government ownership of the economy, spends a significant portion of it's taxes on managing (mismanaging) their infrastructure and intellectual resources. That unfortunately only leaves about 6% of their $2.2 Trillion budget for healthcare, all the while, not having a private healthcare industry to fill the gaps. If you've been paying attention to China at all in the last few years, you would be well aware of their many literal bridges to nowhere, empty cities, and "san gong" spending. Look, the gap isn't "mismanagement" its simply the fact they are per-person poorer than other nations and the US simply has to spend ridiculous amounts to get "average" results. You can't, mathematically, spend 17% of your GDP on healthcare without US level incomes and still pay for everything else. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-29/china-health-care-spending-may-hit-1-trillion-by-2020 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-29/china-heal... > Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care spending in China will almost triple to $1 trillion annually by 2020 driven by an aging population and government efforts to broaden insurance coverage, according to a McKinsey & Co. report. > China will spend more on drugs, medical devices and hospital treatments as it lifts spending to 7 percent of gross domestic product, from 5.5 percent, or $350 billion, in 2010, McKinsey said yesterday. This will make it the biggest market globally by 2020 after the U.S., which in 2009 spent $2.5 trillion, or 17.6 percent of its GDP, on health care, said the consulting company. Seems to me, they are catching up as fast as a low-per-capita income country cound for healthcare spending. The sheer waste in the US healthcare system is truly phenomenal compared to its quality. I have an uncle who is a doctor who is literally planning to retire to another country because he believes he can get better quality care for a third of the price as well as a lower cost of living. Quoting the US's outrageous spending as a percentage of GDP as "good" is nuts. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wba... The UK spends ~9.1% which is all China needs to reach as it becomes possible for them to get a quality, first world healthcare system. They don't need to spend 17.1% of GDP like the US does. Its obscene how badly mismanaged the US's system is. Hell, Israel is at 7.4%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06... > The United Kingdom, which spends just $3,405 per person on health care, placed first overall in the comparison of 11 nations that include Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, France, Germany and others. (Previous surveys examined smaller numbers of nations.) In 2004, the U.K. ranked third of the five nations studied.