Why are the most successful modern countries ones which are full of taxation and regulation?
Sounds to me like the “free market” has spoken and chosen that as the superior form of governance.
Why are the most successful modern countries ones which are full of taxation and regulation?
Sounds to me like the “free market” has spoken and chosen that as the superior form of governance.
Queue the “No true Scotsman” argument in 3…2…1…
which countries are you referring to?
Do not forget non-religious as well.
which countries are you referring to?
Atleast all of these ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
.
great, a list. Which of those are you considering successful, all of them? And, what are the current tax rates?
I can’t wait to hear how you can call Greece, Poland, Turkey, Spain and some of the others “successful”
great, a list. Which of those are you considering successful, and what are the current tax rates?
I can use different metrics to define success. By all of the metrics I can think of, the countries I consider successful are all rely heavily on taxation to function. Maybe you define success differently.
eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
Let me ask you a question:
Can you give me an example of a country you would call “successful” that does not rely heavily on taxation to function?
No, I can’t. It’s your thread - at least try to back it up. What countries on that list do you consider successful, and provide the metrics you used. When you have done that, I’ll either counter or agree.
I might also add that for a trolling effort, this is pretty weak…
That’s a really flawed graph. Did you read the footnote?
“The ‘Corporate rate’ chart is noted as follows “Where a progressive (as opposed to flat) rate structure applies, the top marginal rate is shown.” It is showing the top rate for corporate taxes, not a mean rate”
In other words, the corporate rates shown bear almost no resemblance to the actual rates paid!!
(what do you expect from Wikipedia ;)?
Why are the most successful modern countries ones which are full of taxation and regulation?
What would there be to tax and regulate in an unsuccessful country?
Sounds to me like the “free market” has spoken and chosen that as the superior form of governance.
Or is it that tax and regulation can only exist in successful countries and since free markets and capitalism has been shown to be one of, if not the only method to become “Successful” that tax and regulation simply are parasites on the “Free market”?
~Matt
No, I can’t. It’s your thread - at least try to back it up. What countries on that list do you consider successful, and provide the metrics you used. When you have done that, I’ll either counter or agree.
Huh? I just gave you a metric. Do you agree with it or not?
I also said “most” successful, which is inherently subjective. Success isn’t a binary value.
“The ‘Corporate rate’ chart is noted as follows “Where a progressive (as opposed to flat) rate structure applies, the top marginal rate is shown.” It is showing the top rate for corporate taxes, not a mean rate”
I used that as a list of countries I consider successful. I was not used to directly comment on taxation.
Or is it that tax and regulation can only exist in successful countries and since free markets and capitalism has been shown to be one of, if not the only method to become “Successful” that tax and regulation simply are parasites on the “Free market”?
Could be, but then you’d have to accept that the free market has always decided capitalism is too weak of a system to exist on it’s own, and will always morph to a form which relies on taxation. That’s the free market at work.
great, a list. Which of those are you considering successful, and what are the current tax rates?
I can use different metrics to define success. By all of the metrics I can think of, the countries I consider successful are all rely heavily on taxation to function. Maybe you define success differently.
eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/...an_Development_Index
Let me ask you a question:
Can you give me an example of a country you would call “successful” that does not rely heavily on taxation to function?
The list you have here has the US as #4, not to shabby. We’re behind 3 countries with relatively small populations, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. I’d say we’re successful.
**Why are the most successful modern countries ones which are full of taxation and regulation? **
Sounds to me like the “free market” has spoken and chosen that as the superior form of governance.
Why are homes where dogs are welcome the one that are most full of fleas? Sounds to me like canine biology has spoken and chosen flea-infested homes as the superior homes for dogs.
Why are homes where dogs are welcome the one that are most full of fleas? Sounds to me like canine biology has spoken and chosen flea-infested homes as the superior homes for dogs.
If you want to use that twisted analogy:
dogs=countries
fleas=taxes
homes=governments
canine biology=the free market
Then yes, the homes/governments with no fleas/taxes will not be good homes/governments for dogs/countries, because canine biology/the free market/reality says they won’t (or can’t) exist.
I wouldnt call Mexico a success. But I can see how they have low personal tax rate, since the US taxpayer contributes so much to that drug cartel run shit hole!
I wouldnt call Mexico a success.
Oh, yeah, I didn’t notice Mexico on that list. There’s definitely some metrics by which I wouldn’t consider them a success. By my own completely subjective “would I personally want to visit that country” success metric, they fail.
One way to gage the ‘success-fullness’ of nations is through Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). PPP considers the average GDP per person in that country and how much they could buy locally with that. By that measure the US is doing just fine…
But all it takes is a drive around America’s inner cities, its shut down factories, boarded up houses, protests, etc. to realize that all is not fine with America.
There is a problem with using PPP as a measure of ‘success-fullness’. Because it only looks at an average income in the country, the reading can be skewed for the bell-shaped mass of people around the median incomes.
What that means is that in some countries the PPP is very healthy but much of that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Consider the extreme case of Brunei - this nation on the island of Borneo is listed as pink on the PPP chart, just like Norway, Canada, and Switzerland. It has a very high per-person GDP. The problem is that a significant portion of that GDP comes form off-shore oil and it mostly goes into the hands of the Sultan and his family. One small group is fabulously wealthy - the masses are doing so-so. I’ve been to Brunei and walking around looking at the people live you’d never call it as successful as Norway, Canada, and Switzerland.
Below is a chart showing the GINI Coefficient - a measure of statistical income distribution. Lower numbers (i.e. purples & blues) show a more even income distribution. Yellows & reds suggest a unbalanced income distribution.
The USA has a similar problem to Brunei (to a much less extent of course). An elite few make great money. A large portion of the population lives paycheck-to-paycheck. The very low taxes of the US end up helping those making a good income retain more capital. They then use that capital to a competitive advantage to build more wealth. The problem is that those with little wealth never earn enough capital to ‘prime the pump’.
One interesting indicator that this is actually happening is the lack of social mobility in the USA. Historically the USA was thought of as a nation where anyone could become successful and wealthy. That is less-and-less the case. Studies suggest that income level in the US is much more stratified that in other developed nations. This means that if daddy is rich and successful, you will more than likely be the same and if daddy is a poor labourer you are likely to be the same. Even crusty nations like England, where class has been traditionally a barrier to advancement, is doing better on the “elasticity of father-son income” scale.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1
In summary, higher taxes are considered to be an evil in the USA - but if they are collected, and used intelligently and frugally then they end up making the nation stronger.
but then you’d have to accept that the free market has always decided capitalism is too weak of a system to exist on it’s own** and will always morph to a form which relies on taxation.**
A “free market” does not exclude the possibility of “Taxation” and thus can still exist as a free market with taxation and become no weaker with that taxation in place. Considering that a free market economy must have a certain level of government in order to operate it stands to reason that that government must be paid for in some way. “Taxation”, depending on how it is implemented and for what purposes is indeed a necessary function of a free market.
In short I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Seems you’re saying that as soon as there is any type or form of “Taxation” that the “Free market” has accepted it can not exist as a pure “Free market”. That is false.
As an example a free market insists that in order to protect the society from external force that the government must provide that protection as the market itself is not allowed to use force. Force is the only entity that can counteract force. Thus we have a military.
That military clearly needs to be paid for in some fashion. There are “Better” and “Worse ways” to pay for it but since that payment would be mandatory based on some factor(s) one could consider it a “Fee market acceptable tax”.
Again I’m not sure I entirely understand your point.
~Matt