389 replies to this topic

[Jerrydevil]

Don't apply what Hollande says to the US. Just because it doesn't float here doesnt mean it won't float in Europe. Most Europeans are left of center and their center is closer to what is considered our far left, especially in France.

I understand that leftism is more widely embraced in Europe than in the U.S. But wealth redistribution is the same no matter what country it takes place. You have makers and takers, and there comes a point where you get diminishing returns ... you raise taxes but tax revenue doesn't rise. And if things get really bad, the welfare state collapses. Then you get austerity, even if your president is Francois Hollande. Don't think this will happen? We'll have to wait and see. I don't think we'll have to wait too long. Maybe during Hollande's term.

[Daniel]

I have no problem with 75% of everything that is above 1 millions (and not 75% of 1 million.. slight difference), i have no problem with control of wealth to a better balance (no one is "anti-wealth" here... but i guess... this is rhetorical)... and i never hear anything about "create thousand of governement jobs"... but take care of education system by a better thinking system.

He is dangerous from your point of view because he doesn't think like you. He is misguided from your point of view... coz it's not.. your point of view.

And this type of politic was effective before for our Country... And Germany knows that already. the way of working of Sarkozy was the mistake. Thanks he is out of the game now.

The 75 percent tax will end up being more symbolic than anything. I'd guess that the marginal rate is probably close to 50 percent as it is. Also, lots of those people will be packing up and moving to London. In fact there's a pretty substantial French population in London right now.

The other thing that gets lost in the debate are the highly regressive aspects of European tax policy. I think in France the VAT amounts to something like a 20 percent sales tax, which hits poorer people disproportionately since they have to spend more of their income than wealthier people. I will say this for them though, France, Sweden, Germany want socialized medicine, AND understand that you need higher taxes on everyone to pay for it. Here unfortunately there are too many people, including the President apparently, that seem to think that you can provide everyone with cradle to grave healthcare if only we squeezed a few more pennies out of Warren Buffett.

Edited by Daniel, 16 May 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Jerrydevil]

VATs are insidious. One of the worst aspects of European tax policy. Naturally, Obama would love one here!

[Daniel]

VATs are insidious. One of the worst aspects of European tax policy. Naturally, Obama would love one here!

Some aspects of it are good, mainly much lower compliance costs (no need to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to prepare an income tax return). It is regressive though. As I say, if you want universal healthcare, generous publicly financed pensions and a low retirement age, you need to expand the tax base, and not only take those ivory back-scratchers away from the one percent. The best way to do that is through a consumption tax, which is what the VAT is.

[Pepperkorn]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make things affordable rather than tax the sh!t out of everyone so the gov. has to provide life's necessities? I don't like social services so much but I also don't think it's appropriate to provide medical care based upon what the market will bear. Life is life -- not many people will say in all honesty they'd rather die than pay an exorbitant price for a triple by-pass. I know many DO do just that. But I think it's morally wrong to put any human in the position to have to make that choice.

I understand what kind of $$ has to go into medical research for tools and drugs. I also understand that the medical industry is one of the most profitable.

[squishyx]

I understand that leftism is more widely embraced in Europe than in the U.S. But wealth redistribution is the same no matter what country it takes place. You have makers and takers, and there comes a point where you get diminishing returns ... you raise taxes but tax revenue doesn't rise. And if things get really bad, the welfare state collapses. Then you get austerity, even if your president is Francois Hollande. Don't think this will happen? We'll have to wait and see. I don't think we'll have to wait too long. Maybe during Hollande's term.

But we aren't there. And tax revenues as a percent of GDP was around 15% src (the lowest in 40 years) for 2011, when the average is closer to 18%. Unquestionably some of that downfall is the recession (if people make less money, the gov't collects less money, all the while dealing with a spike in social safety nets). But if you look at the CBO projections, we only get back to the average by letting the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire.

Edit: Fixed the average revenue % of GDP, I read the dotted line instead of the solid

Edited by squishyx, 16 May 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Jerrydevil]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make things affordable rather than tax the sh!t out of everyone so the gov. has to provide life's necessities?

I think so, but that's fiscal conservatism 101, so you're speaking my language, LOL!

Regarding medical care, there will never be a perfect solution, although it won't stop big-government supporters from trying to find one! I am no expert on medicine, but I do believe that one of the biggest challenges in medicine is reducing costs, and we all know how lousy the government is at reducing costs. Does not compute!

[Daniel]

I think so, but that's fiscal conservatism 101, so you're speaking my language, LOL!

Regarding medical care, there will never be a perfect solution, although it won't stop big-government supporters from trying to find one! I am no expert on medicine, but I do believe that one of the biggest challenges in medicine is reducing costs, and we all know how lousy the government is at reducing costs. Does not compute!

Funny how all of these threads end up going back to healthcare.

You could to a certain extent fix the medical care issue by opening up competition and allowing non-physcians to perform certain types of medical procedures and examinations. I just discovered the minute-clinic at CVS which diagnosed an ear-infection and gave me a prescription within a few minutes for much much less than it would have cost to go to an MD. I also think about the possibility of a large public company employing nurse-practitioner types to do things like make routine prescriptions, uncomplicated stitching of wounds, yearly physicals, among other things. If you had a company as good as Wal-Mart running it, I wonder if you would even need insurance for those services.

This unfortunately, will only help out at the margins. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. What it comes down to is that most people in this country, even those that don't want to admit it, believe it is basic right to have a third-party pay for your medical care, be it an insurance company or the government. When someone else is paying for you to have anything -- be it medical care, a car, food, hockey tickets -- the tendency is to seek out as much as you can. (Unless you have the Jewish mother guilt complex, which is still kind of rare). Relatively high demand, relatively low supply = higher prices. That's a close to a scientific law in economics as it gets.

ADDENDUM: You can also have a single-payer system, which ultimately is price controlling by another name. The amount the taxpayer ponies up for medical care might be lower, but it means you get shortages.

Edited by Daniel, 16 May 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Jerrydevil]

Scott Walker staves off the statists and the labor union hacks. A great day for Wisconsin and America.

[CaptainRafalski]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make things affordable rather than tax the sh!t out of everyone so the gov. has to provide life's necessities?

Things are currently "not affordable" because of the use of a paper currency backed by nothing. Inflation is the name of the game.