So, how much should we tax the rich? 70%? 90%?

tjohn said:

terp said:  

Did they share with you how the establishment of the welfare state in the 1960's and 1970's has caused them to start falling down the list of wealthiest nations?   Did they tell you about all the currency devaluations that caused them to start to roll back some of the welfare state in the 1990's.    

 Is that cause and effect or is it because of the rise of Asian nations, for example?  You have to admit that the relative wealth of the West was a bit of an aberration attributable to the West getting a lead on the rest of the world.

many of the world's wealthiest nations are oil enriched.  And of the top 5 or 6 many of them are not countries we would call "free" by any stretch of the imagination.

tjohn said:

terp said:  

Did they share with you how the establishment of the welfare state in the 1960's and 1970's has caused them to start falling down the list of wealthiest nations?   Did they tell you about all the currency devaluations that caused them to start to roll back some of the welfare state in the 1990's.    

 Is that cause and effect or is it because of the rise of Asian nations, for example?  You have to admit that the relative wealth of the West was a bit of an aberration attributable to the West getting a lead on the rest of the world.

 If you look at the numbers, IIRC they fell from #4 to #14 in like 15 years.   The numbers are remarkable:  I don't have these numbers exact, maybe I can look them up later.  But these are definitely close.  In the last quarter of the 20th Century, per capita income increased by about 70% in the US, about 60% in Western Europe and 40% in Sweden.  

There are other crazy numbers regarding innovation or the lack there of in the Swedish economy.  In the year 2000, I believe only 1 of the top 50 Swedish Companies was founded after 1970.  

Taxation isn't the problem, it's the spending.

Chavez taxed the rich right out of existence in Venezuela. I agree the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage, but there's a limit to everything. You just can not penalize people for being successful and rich. Utopia doesn't exist..not even in the wilderness.

the OECD has a site where you can rank countries on a whole array of measures of well being.  It's kind of simplistic imho to just look at GDP or wealth to decide whether life in one country or another is "better" than someplace else.  And the beauty of the tool is that you can decide for yourself how much weight to give each factor.  If income is your main criterion for well being, you can give it the highest weight, and sure enough, the U.S. pops to the top.  If you weight all the factors equally (such as health, education, life satisfaction, etc. in addition to income), it's probably not a surprise that most of the top ranking countries are Scandinavian.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

Jaytee said:
Taxation isn't the problem, it's the spending.
Chavez taxed the rich right out of existence in Venezuela. I agree the super wealthy should pay a higher percentage, but there's a limit to everything. You just can not penalize people for being successful and rich. Utopia doesn't exist..not even in the wilderness.

 But you can penalize them for being poor.  Please elaborate.

I wish people wouldn't think for others based on a statement. Where did I say anything about penalizing the poor? 

That is why I said spending is the problem. Not enough being spent on helping the poor. You can tax the beejesus out of people, then have your priorities all screwed up in the way you spend the money money. No one has ever been hired by a poor person. There must be a balance. If you want the government to tax, hire and feed all of us, then everyone becomes equally poor. 

Jaytee said:
That is why I said spending is the problem. Not enough being spent on helping the poor. You can tax the beejesus out of people, then have your priorities all screwed up in the way you spend the money money.

There must be a balance. If you want the government to tax, hire and feed all of us, then everyone becomes equally poor. 

 Agree, but what is the balance?  That is the question posed in the title.  50%?  60%?

terp said:

 

There are 2 forces that drive human exchange.  First, there is the free market.  This is simply, individuals exchanging goods and services with one another as they see fit.   The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.  

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who say there are only two forces, and those that do not.

Count me along the latter. There is (at least) one more force, and that is regulation. 

Transactions influenced by regulation are not coerced, only moderated.

AOC / Avo Toast ‘20

Taste the Justice.

tom said:

terp said: 

There are 2 forces that drive human exchange.  First, there is the free market.  This is simply, individuals exchanging goods and services with one another as they see fit.   The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.  

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who say there are only two forces, and those that do not.


Count me along the latter. There is (at least) one more force, and that is regulation. 


Transactions influenced by regulation are not coerced, only moderated.

Remind me.  How are those regulations enforced?  What happens when one doesn't comply?

The same way any other regulation is enforced. You can't pull a gun on me to make me sell my house to you. You can't threaten to kidnap my children if I don't cut the price of a car. 

And then there are the more subtle things. If you're gay you can't shop here. If you're black you can't rent this apartment. If you want to work here you have to accept $4 an hour. There is no "free market" in cases like that. There's no negotiation, or meeting of equals in the marketplace. 

You'll no doubt fall back on the "threat of violence." Unfortunately that is what it takes to get some people to deal fairly and honestly. 

tom said:
The same way any other regulation is enforced. You can't pull a gun on me to make me sell my house to you. You can't threaten to kidnap my children if I don't cut the price of a car. 
And then there are the more subtle things. If you're gay you can't shop here. If you're black you can't rent this apartment. If you want to work here you have to accept $4 an hour. There is no "free market" in cases like that. There's no negotiation, or meeting of equals in the marketplace. 

even more basic, how is the payment in the transaction ultimately enforced?  By "coercion."  It's all coercion in one form or another, isn't it?  If there wasn't some sort of threat of enforcement, why wouldn't people just go around to stores and shoplift that loaf of bread?

This innocent belief in a free market is just too naive. I can't even.

tom said:
This innocent belief in a free market is just too naive. I can't even.

 They believe in something that has never actually existed, except in , um, a novel or two.

tom said:
The same way any other regulation is enforced. You can't pull a gun on me to make me sell my house to you. You can't threaten to kidnap my children if I don't cut the price of a car. 
And then there are the more subtle things. If you're gay you can't shop here. If you're black you can't rent this apartment. If you want to work here you have to accept $4 an hour. There is no "free market" in cases like that. There's no negotiation, or meeting of equals in the marketplace. 

I don't understand this answer at all.  I simply asked how the regulations are enforced.  

The claim you seemed to make was that regulations was something entirely from government coercion.  This response and those that follow it don't address my question at all.  All you've done is erect a bunch of straw men.  

The answer is right there. Regulations are enforced by the government. Just like laws against blackmail and kidnapping, you are coerced into not doing those things. Libertarian types might whine about the "threat of violence" preventing them from dumping toxic waste into a public water supply, or stealing a worker's pay, but I for one am glad that threat is real.

Ok.  So how is that different than government intervention and coercion as you claim? 

terp said:

The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.

 OK. So how do regulations compel exchanges?

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:
The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.

 OK. So how do regulations compel exchanges?

 Bingo. You're not compelled to play; but if you do you're compelled to play by the rules. 

tom said:

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:
The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.

 OK. So how do regulations compel exchanges?

 Bingo. You're not compelled to play; but if you do you're compelled to play by the rules. 

I think terp is talking about government "distortions" in the market (making it less "free") that compel economic actors to deal with each other, whereas they otherwise would not if they had the freedom to say no.

terp said:

But since you know so many Swedes, I must ask. Did they speak to you about their minimum wage laws?  Did they tell you about their school voucher program?   Did they share their corporate tax rates with you?   Did they share the Swedish history of free exchange prior to the construction of their welfare state that resulted in a tenfold increase in the standard of living establishing them as the 4th richest country in the nation?   
Did they share with you how the establishment of the welfare state in the 1960's and 1970's has caused them to start falling down the list of wealthiest nations?   Did they tell you about all the currency devaluations that caused them to start to roll back some of the welfare state in the 1990's
One of the most vapid arguments that people on the left seem to make is that we can simply map a specific policy they prefer from another country to the United States and it will work exactly as it does there.    

 Ah, the casual assumption of the ignorance of your interlocutors. I suppose you're just being a good sport and backing ML1 up in his observation that "you have a tendency to assume people you don't agree with are either stupid or venal." 

drummerboy said:

I think terp is talking about government "distortions" in the market (making it less "free") that compel economic actors to deal with each other, whereas they otherwise would not if they had the freedom to say no.

Different from the way a free market compels the grocer to sell his bread, because he or she can't live off eating it all? Both views of compulsion would seem to sap its meaning.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:
I think terp is talking about government "distortions" in the market (making it less "free") that compel economic actors to deal with each other, whereas they otherwise would not if they had the freedom to say no.

Different from the way a free market compels the grocer to sell his bread, because he or she can't live off eating it all? Both views of compulsion would seem to sap its meaning.

 You're asking me? I'm just hear to put words in terp's mouth.

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Different from the way a free market compels the grocer to sell his bread, because he or she can't live off eating it all? Both views of compulsion would seem to sap its meaning.

 You're asking me? I'm just hear to put words in terp's mouth.

 No, just thinking out loud.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Different from the way a free market compels the grocer to sell his bread, because he or she can't live off eating it all? Both views of compulsion would seem to sap its meaning.

 You're asking me? I'm just hear to put words in terp's mouth.

 No, just thinking out loud.

 I got "hear" wrong on the crossword today too. arghh

terp said:

basil said:

terp said:
And for those that gained extreme wealth in the free market, I have nothing but congratulations for them.  Because, if they did this in the free market, you can bet that society benefited many times over the wealth they accumulated(see Steve Jobs).  

That is a fairly random statement that is not based on any fact

 It's really not.  But there is a lot of confusion about what the free market is.  There is no pure free market. 
There are 2 forces that drive human exchange.  First, there is the free market.  This is simply, individuals exchanging goods and services with one another as they see fit.   The other force are exchanges that are compelled by government intervention and coercion.  
Typically, our systems exist in a continuum between these 2 forces.  Many people on this board argue to move along that continuum towards more government intervention and coercion.  I, quite obviously, tend to argue towards free exchange.  
In a system dominated by free exchange, when people trade it is mutually beneficial to both parties.  That is, both parties win when an exchange takes place.  When you go to your grocer and buy loaf of bread for $3, you are happy because you value that loaf of bread at more than $3.   The grocer is happy because they value the $3 more than the loaf of bread.  

Thus, anyone who gets rich making these kinds of exchanges has brought quite a bit of value to others in society. 
I'll leave it to you to determine how you get rich in a society dominated by government intervention and coercion. 

Let me give you another example of how a free market works. In a faraway land, Libertaria, there are no taxes, everything is free market. For example the fire departments in Libertaria are not funded by any taxes, but are in fact funded by people that need their services. So if your house catches fire, you can call the FD and negotiate a rate for them to come over and put out your fire. They also use drone technology so they can, in real-time, understand how serious the fire is, because for more serious fire the FD increases their price, because they assume (correctly) that the home owner has more to loose and will therefore be "happy" to pay a higher fee. So everyone is "happy". 

drummerboy said:

I got "hear" wrong on the crossword today too. arghh

And watch those a(a)rghs.

I meant to add last night that I appreciated the way you put the words. They’re what got me thinking a bit.

basil said:

Let me give you another example of how a free market works. In a faraway land, Libertaria, there are no taxes, everything is free market. For example the fire departments in Libertaria are not funded by any taxes, but are in fact funded by people that need their services. So if your house catches fire, you can call the FD and negotiate a rate for them to come over and put out your fire. They also use drone technology so they can, in real-time, understand how serious the fire is, because for more serious fire the FD increases their price, because they assume (correctly) that the home owner has more to loose and will therefore be "happy" to pay a higher fee. So everyone is "happy". 

 If I lived in that land and my neighbor's house caught fire because he fell asleep while smoking, and the fire spread to my house and I called the FD ( I guess I would call one of the private enterprises that put out fires) and I negotiated a price and they came and put out my fire would I have any recourse against my neighbor? Are there Courts in which I could sue him? Are the Courts the same as the Fire Companies, independent companies with which I must negotiate a price to use their services? If I do so and am successful and said private enterprise Court determines that my neighbor must reimburse me for what I paid the Fire Company and the Court Company and he reuses to do so, do I then hire an Enforcement Company to go to him and force him to pay me?

Just asking.

LOST said:

basil said:

Let me give you another example of how a free market works. In a faraway land, Libertaria, there are no taxes, everything is free market. For example the fire departments in Libertaria are not funded by any taxes, but are in fact funded by people that need their services. So if your house catches fire, you can call the FD and negotiate a rate for them to come over and put out your fire. They also use drone technology so they can, in real-time, understand how serious the fire is, because for more serious fire the FD increases their price, because they assume (correctly) that the home owner has more to loose and will therefore be "happy" to pay a higher fee. So everyone is "happy". 

 If I lived in that land and my neighbor's house caught fire because he fell asleep while smoking, and the fire spread to my house and I called the FD ( I guess I would call one of the private enterprises that put out fires) and I negotiated a price and they came and put out my fire would I have any recourse against my neighbor? Are there Courts in which I could sue him? Are the Courts the same as the Fire Companies, independent companies with which I must negotiate a price to use their services? If I do so and am successful and said private enterprise Court determines that my neighbor must reimburse me for what I paid the Fire Company and the Court Company and he reuses to do so, do I then hire an Enforcement Company to go to him and force him to pay me?
Just asking.

Yes to all the above. That's why nobody wants to live there.