Americans renouncing citizenship to become British over taxes

[BruceVC]

 

For the record, what we call communism/socialism isn't actually either of those things. True socialism is where nobody has any personal effects, and everyone works to support the state. The State, in turn, provides food, housing and entertainment for it's population and ensures that everyone is protected. Basically, money changing hands is not something that'd happen in a perfect socialist nation.

Facepalm.jpg. Before posting nonsense try read "Capital" by Marx (or works by Lenin about this). True socialism  is where no State exists. 

 

 

That sounds typical of Marx, a system that sounds perfect in theory but is completely unsustainable and can never be realistically implemented.

 

I always wanted to live in Wonderland, but I had to accept it won't happen.

[obyknven]

 

 

For the record, what we call communism/socialism isn't actually either of those things. True socialism is where nobody has any personal effects, and everyone works to support the state. The State, in turn, provides food, housing and entertainment for it's population and ensures that everyone is protected. Basically, money changing hands is not something that'd happen in a perfect socialist nation.

Facepalm.jpg. Before posting nonsense try read "Capital" by Marx (or works by Lenin about this). True socialism  is where no State exists.

 

That would be Communism. Socialism is the stage before Communism, where the state still exists.

Socialism and Communism are synonyms.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

[Guard Dog]

You know, I'm tired of seeing this discussion everywhere.

I don't want to foul much more words over it. I'll say it once more and then leave it at that.

let me just say that I'm firmly left wing in my politics. Welfare states routinely are listed in the top for income equality, GDP per head, life expectancy, health, education, infrastructure, upward mobility, and low crime rates, low infant death rates, and low population growth (good thing).

 

High taxes work, and everyone benefits. you tax the highest earners the most, because beyond a certain point, it doesn't get spent by the earner, and he just sits on it. After all, after you've bought your third tropical island, what's left to do?

Trickle down has never worked. If you want reaganomics, go to Pakistan and see how it benefited them.

 

But there's such a "MINE!" mentality, and a great deal of loss aversion, plus ideological beliefs which are provably wrong, which the political right has so expertly managed to frame with their one-liners, that no-one on that side of the political spectrum seems capable of seeing how much they gain from a caring government. It's practically impossible to succeed in life without help, and governments provide help to those who otherwise couldn't get it. In order to do that, they need money. That's not such a hard concept to understand, is it?

 

The redistribution of wealth (which is not a perfectly equal redistribution, mind you, you can still earn and have tremendous amounts of wealth) does strengthen the economy, because it allows for a much broader base of consumers. A poor man can't buy a computer, after all. A poor man can't afford an education in order to become a more skilled worker.

 

How can this incredibly simple concept fail to make sense to those on the political right? I will never know.

 

And if you've earned more than 250.000 euro in a year, I think it is incredibly selfish to want to keep every damn penny. Morally bankrupt. Especially since with 52% tax (here in the Netherlands, it is scaled lower incomes pay a lower percentage) you would keep 120.000 euro, which is a fine amount to live of. And it ensures high quality healthcare when you get sick, keeps those damn vagrants of the streets, makes the paved highways broad for traffic and trade, gives you access to high-speed internet, cleans the damn streets, pays for police and firemen and a whole wide range of services you take for granted and which would be way to expensive if you had to pay for it yourself.

I never said that government does not have a role to play, that taxes are not needed or that social programs are dispensable. I've never understood the abolutisim of the left. They really think that is you are are not 100% for them then you are 100% against them. However taxing past the point of punishment for the nebulous concept of social welfare, or giving people money for doing nothing is also wrong. It is one thing to help people who need it. It is another thing entirely to give them a living for doing nothing. Don't get me wrong. The elderly, the disabled, the infirm need to be supported and we have mechanisims in place to do that. But abuse from laziness and a twisted sense of entitlement is rampant and no one is willing to fix it because welfare has become the new "third rail". We are expected to just shrug and accept that is the way of it and watch or taxes climb higher and higher and accept less and less from our labor. After a point it is difficult not to see the beneficiaries of our hard work as parasites. Especially when you see news stories like the woman in MI who won the lottery and still continured to take welfare and food stamps. And saw nothing wrong with that. Remember this, every dollar, euro or yen someone recieves without working for, someone else worked for with out recieving.

 

As for "caring government" let me know when you find one of those.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Bos_hybrid]

As for "caring government" let me know when you find one of those.

 

All governments care.

 

 

Just not about people

 

 

You got to remember we vote for people that lie and slander for a living, and more often than not, are corrupt.

 

I can generally say that most just make the hair on the back of my neck stand up, but maybe that's just aussie politicians.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bos_hybrid

[Walsingham]

Y

...High taxes work, and everyone benefits. you tax the highest earners the most, because beyond a certain point, it doesn't get spent by the earner, and he just sits on it. After all, after you've bought your third tropical island, what's left to do?

Trickle down has never worked. If you want reaganomics, go to Pakistan and see how it benefited them.

 

But there's such a "MINE!" mentality, and a great deal of loss aversion, plus ideological beliefs which are provably wrong, which the political right has so expertly managed to frame with their one-liners, that no-one on that side of the political spectrum seems capable of seeing how much they gain from a caring government. It's practically impossible to succeed in life without help, and governments provide help to those who otherwise couldn't get it. In order to do that, they need money. That's not such a hard concept to understand, is it?

 

 

How can this incredibly simple concept fail to make sense to those on the political right? I will never know.

 

And if you've earned more than 250.000 euro in a year, I think it is incredibly selfish to want to keep every damn penny. Morally bankrupt. Especially since with 52% tax (here in the Netherlands, it is scaled lower incomes pay a lower percentage) you would keep 120.000 euro, which is a fine amount to live of. And it ensures high quality healthcare when you get sick, keeps those damn vagrants of the streets, makes the paved highways broad for traffic and trade, gives you access to high-speed internet, cleans the damn streets, pays for police and firemen and a whole wide range of services you take for granted and which would be way to expensive if you had to pay for it yourself.

 

1) Governments spend money on pointless crap. Stuff that burdens the country with redundant infrastructure and lossmaking industries. Padded civil service pensions, fleets of unwanted obsolescent military aircraft, windfarms that cost money to run.

 

2) If you think your taxes go exclusively on stuff you wanted I heartily recommend you spend some time spending the government's money.

 

3) I can't emphasise this last point enough. You may object to people setting up successful enterprises and making money. Hell if they do it by exploiting people I get as angry as the next man. But if your solution is to mallet the issue by blanket taxing everyone, then I will credit your intelligence sufficiently that you may freely assume my opinion of your education.

 

~

 

GD may be interested to note that I've moderated my views somewhat in the last year or two. I do pay attention to what people say in these debates.

[Syraxis]

 

Y

...High taxes work, and everyone benefits. you tax the highest earners the most, because beyond a certain point, it doesn't get spent by the earner, and he just sits on it. After all, after you've bought your third tropical island, what's left to do?

Trickle down has never worked. If you want reaganomics, go to Pakistan and see how it benefited them.

 

But there's such a "MINE!" mentality, and a great deal of loss aversion, plus ideological beliefs which are provably wrong, which the political right has so expertly managed to frame with their one-liners, that no-one on that side of the political spectrum seems capable of seeing how much they gain from a caring government. It's practically impossible to succeed in life without help, and governments provide help to those who otherwise couldn't get it. In order to do that, they need money. That's not such a hard concept to understand, is it?

 

 

How can this incredibly simple concept fail to make sense to those on the political right? I will never know.

 

And if you've earned more than 250.000 euro in a year, I think it is incredibly selfish to want to keep every damn penny. Morally bankrupt. Especially since with 52% tax (here in the Netherlands, it is scaled lower incomes pay a lower percentage) you would keep 120.000 euro, which is a fine amount to live of. And it ensures high quality healthcare when you get sick, keeps those damn vagrants of the streets, makes the paved highways broad for traffic and trade, gives you access to high-speed internet, cleans the damn streets, pays for police and firemen and a whole wide range of services you take for granted and which would be way to expensive if you had to pay for it yourself.

 

1) Governments spend money on pointless crap. Stuff that burdens the country with redundant infrastructure and lossmaking industries. Padded civil service pensions, fleets of unwanted obsolescent military aircraft, windfarms that cost money to run.

Padded civil service pensions when the civil servants hired to do the jobs are some of the most inept people around. It certainly doesn't help that it's extremely difficult to fire these people in all but the most extreme cases. What's government in all its infinite wisdom propose to combat this problem? Hire more inept civil servants. 

[Zoraptor]

Thanks for the links, but almost all these articles discuss  proposed tax increases or increasing taxes on the wealthy or new property taxes. I understand this and agree. But I am talking about tax increases for every person across the board, both rich and poor. And it looks like only Greece has implemented this

They all (exc the Britties, who always increase indirect taxes instead) have increased VAT, which is the classic consumption tax. Since two of those rises are directly referenced in the links and you've accepted it's the case with Greece (and it's a not directly on topic) I'll not provide more links, if you want to check it out yourself you can always google Portugal VAT rise (2011, IIRC) and Ireland VAT rise (2012, IIRC). VAT increases are particularly bad because they always hit those with less discretionary income hardest, those with discretionary income can simply stop spending- which, of course, is bad for the economy- while those who have little to no discretionary income find themselves with even less. 

[JFSOCC]

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

what a cynical view. I like to believe that a well designed system doesn't encourage gaming. Sure, here in the Netherlands there are those who do, as there are everywhere, but the vast majority of those who receive help are grateful for it and are given the means to improve their situation. And that's fairly common. Almost half of our now employed workforce have at one point in their life received benefits. So most people do get out of it. The government reaches them the means to do so. You can't work on your bachelors if you're starving in the street, but you can if you were given enough money to rent a house and get some food. so you could see it as an investment in society AND the economy.

It's a fantasy to thing that most people are happy to live of such a small stipend government supplies. It's never been a honey pot, but rather a safety net. Most people want to work, or study, give meaning to their life.

 

Just because there are those who do game the sytsem, a small minority, the vast majority who are helped shouldn't suffer of the sins of a few.

practise has proven that it works. I'm saddened to see a shift to the political right in recent years in the Netherlands, it has cost us a lot.

[JFSOCC]

I never said that government does not have a role to play, that taxes are not needed or that social programs are dispensable. I've never understood the abolutisim of the left. They really think that is you are are not 100% for them then you are 100% against them. However taxing past the point of punishment for the nebulous concept of social welfare, or giving people money for doing nothing is also wrong. It is one thing to help people who need it. It is another thing entirely to give them a living for doing nothing. Don't get me wrong. The elderly, the disabled, the infirm need to be supported and we have mechanisims in place to do that. But abuse from laziness and a twisted sense of entitlement is rampant and no one is willing to fix it because welfare has become the new "third rail". We are expected to just shrug and accept that is the way of it and watch or taxes climb higher and higher and accept less and less from our labor. After a point it is difficult not to see the beneficiaries of our hard work as parasites. Especially when you see news stories like the woman in MI who won the lottery and still continured to take welfare and food stamps. And saw nothing wrong with that. Remember this, every dollar, euro or yen someone recieves without working for, someone else worked for with out recieving.

 

As for "caring government" let me know when you find one of those.

I'm surprised to hear you feel this way. I find the left is so measured that they get waltzed over by the arrogant and loud-mouth right. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, we each live in our own filter bubbles. I enjoy debate, just not repeating one I've had many times. (hence my tired disclaimer) But I'm not deaf to argument. Personally I can't stand absolutism. Something I associate with the religious right.

However taxing past the point of punishment for the nebulous concept of social welfare, or giving people money for doing nothing is also wrong

While I think we should get rid of the concept that doing nothing is inherently wrong, I agree that if you are given aid, you may attach strings. Welfare in the Netherlands comes with a requirement to look for work, except for disability welfare.

Both however also provide aid (along with the funds) in finding work, so even those who are disabled are encouraged, if not required, to look for work. And many do, because most are bored out of their wits doing nothing.

As for punishment taxes, We tax in scales, the first so much you make (since 2013 increases some taxes up to 20k(per year) is taxed 37%. anything from 20k to 55k is 42%, and anything above 55k is taxed 52%.

So if you were doing well, you're going to continue doing well.

And mind you, because we have healthcare mandate, if you go to the hospital, you won't end up with a several thousand dollar hospital bill. You only pay for the insurance, and if you make below a certain income limit (fairly low) you get government aid to help pay your insurance.

Also, insurance has to accept a basic insurance plan from anyone, which at least covers the most important things.

(this was a right-wing/left wing compromise, btw)

 

As much as I hate being poor, I praise my lucky stars that I'm poor in the Netherlands, in the US I'd be dead by now.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

what a cynical view. I like to believe that a well designed system doesn't encourage gaming. Sure, here in the Netherlands there are those who do, as there are everywhere, but the vast majority of those who receive help are grateful for it and are given the means to improve their situation. And that's fairly common. Almost half of our now employed workforce have at one point in their life received benefits. So most people do get out of it. The government reaches them the means to do so. You can't work on your bachelors if you're starving in the street, but you can if you were given enough money to rent a house and get some food. so you could see it as an investment in society AND the economy.

It's a fantasy to thing that most people are happy to live of such a small stipend government supplies. It's never been a honey pot, but rather a safety net. Most people want to work, or study, give meaning to their life.

 

Just because there are those who do game the sytsem, a small minority, the vast majority who are helped shouldn't suffer of the sins of a few.

practise has proven that it works. I'm saddened to see a shift to the political right in recent years in the Netherlands, it has cost us a lot.

Well according to Ayn Rand, poor people are souless parasites whose sole purpose in life is to drag down the superior creators. So I can see where the view comes from.

 

Of course Ayn Rand was a dumbass who lived in a fantasy world.

[BruceVC]

 

Thanks for the links, but almost all these articles discuss  proposed tax increases or increasing taxes on the wealthy or new property taxes. I understand this and agree. But I am talking about tax increases for every person across the board, both rich and poor. And it looks like only Greece has implemented this

They all (exc the Britties, who always increase indirect taxes instead) have increased VAT, which is the classic consumption tax. Since two of those rises are directly referenced in the links and you've accepted it's the case with Greece (and it's a not directly on topic) I'll not provide more links, if you want to check it out yourself you can always google Portugal VAT rise (2011, IIRC) and Ireland VAT rise (2012, IIRC). VAT increases are particularly bad because they always hit those with less discretionary income hardest, those with discretionary income can simply stop spending- which, of course, is bad for the economy- while those who have little to no discretionary income find themselves with even less. 

 

Good points, I totally forgot about VAT I was seeing this from the perspective of an increase on personal Tax.

[Guard Dog]

 

what a cynical view. I like to believe that a well designed system doesn't encourage gaming. Sure, here in the Netherlands there are those who do, as there are everywhere, but the vast majority of those who receive help are grateful for it and are given the means to improve their situation. And that's fairly common. Almost half of our now employed workforce have at one point in their life received benefits. So most people do get out of it. The government reaches them the means to do so. You can't work on your bachelors if you're starving in the street, but you can if you were given enough money to rent a house and get some food. so you could see it as an investment in society AND the economy.

It's a fantasy to thing that most people are happy to live of such a small stipend government supplies. It's never been a honey pot, but rather a safety net. Most people want to work, or study, give meaning to their life.

 

Just because there are those who do game the sytsem, a small minority, the vast majority who are helped shouldn't suffer of the sins of a few.

practise has proven that it works. I'm saddened to see a shift to the political right in recent years in the Netherlands, it has cost us a lot.

Well according to Ayn Rand, poor people are souless parasites whose sole purpose in life is to drag down the superior creators. So I can see where the view comes from.

 

Of course Ayn Rand was a dumbass who lived in a fantasy world.

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that a Russian ex-pat who wrote a couple of mildly interesting novels in the 60's has somehow become the equivalent of Jesus to the church of libertarian thought? You need to get that out of your head KP. It makes you sound silly and you are too smart for that.

 

Come to that Jesus was more libertarian than she was. He tells us to give to the poor of our own volition, not ask the government to take money from other people and give it to the poor.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Where in the world did you get the idea that a Russian ex-pat who wrote a couple of mildly interesting novels in the 60's has somehow become the equivalent of Jesus to the church of libertarian thought?

Here.

 

Here.

 

And Here.

 

Would also note that EVERY libertarian I have met has at least a small obsession with her, but I really don't have a way to showcase that evidence(other than go around interviewing every libertarian I have meant and putting that interview up on Youtube, but I'm a bit too lazy for that.).

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

what a cynical view.

Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

 

Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands.

[Valsuelm]

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that a Russian ex-pat who wrote a couple of mildly interesting novels in the 60's has somehow become the equivalent of Jesus to the church of libertarian thought?

Here.

 

Here.

 

And Here.

 

Would also note that EVERY libertarian I have met has at least a small obsession with her, but I really don't have a way to showcase that evidence(other than go around interviewing every libertarian I have meant and putting that interview up on Youtube, but I'm a bit too lazy for that.).

 

I know more than person that self describes themselves as a libertarian that does not think highly of Rand at all.....

[Guard Dog]

I know one too. I just saw him in the mirror when I was shaving.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I know one too. I just saw him in the mirror when I was shaving.

Why do you not think highly of Rand? I'm genuinely curious.

[JFSOCC]

She was an atheist.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

what a cynical view.

 

 

Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

 

Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands.

 

 

That's a large amount, tell me, has getting disabilities become easier in recent times, or is this rise purely from people who can't get unemployment welfare anymore because their six months are up? (IE fix one and you may fix the other)

[Walsingham]

 

I know one too. I just saw him in the mirror when I was shaving.

Why do you not think highly of Rand? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Because she was completely out of her gourd?

[Hurlshort]

 

She was an atheist.

 

 

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

what a cynical view.

 

Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full

 

Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands.

 

That's a large amount, tell me, has getting disabilities become easier in recent times, or is this rise purely from people who can't get unemployment welfare anymore because their six months are up? (IE fix one and you may fix the other)

 

It's been on the rise since the 90's.  It's a very messed up system.  

[JFSOCC]

the graph shows it's been on the rise since the end of Reagan's last term

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I can't help but feeling it is tied in with the healthcare system as well.  I'd suggest we have a program that finds jobs for disabled people that they can physically do, but that might smack of socialism.  I have some family that is on disability, and I don't get it.  I'm not that close to them, but they seem perfectly capable of doing a non-labor intensive job.  But instead they get paid to stay home.  It's not a good system.

 

Now I do think welfare programs should exist, but they need an overhaul. 

[Guard Dog]

 

I know one too. I just saw him in the mirror when I was shaving.

Why do you not think highly of Rand? I'm genuinely curious.

First off, yes JFSOCC she was an athiest. That does not matter. Disliking someone because their religion or politics are different from yours makes no sense to me. It's like disliking someone because they cheer for a different sports team than you (unless they are Yankees fans, then it's ok ).

 

Now to KP's point my problem is not so much with Rand as with Objectivisim. A purely objectivist society would literally eat itself. There has to be something of a social safety net. There has to be some limitations on capitalisim. I am a card carrying libertarain and I do firmly believe that minimizing government is necassary to maximize freedom. But cutting it back to nothing at all does anything but. A truely fair market is impossible to achive in a complete laissez faire economic system. There has to be ground rules and that requires a government to intervene and rein it in to a point. But it should be a silk leash, not the heavy iron chains we see today.

 

Now my problem with the world today is that we have left that far behind. We are no longer concerned with ensuring equal opportunity so much as forcing equal outcome. The ulitmate result of this IS a loss of liberty. And the saddest part is people are voting their freedom away in every election cycle.

[Walsingham]

The more I learn about systems engineering the less I like the way we're doing things. We're like chimps on a train, shrieking and pulling or pushing every lever in sight.

 

I am in favour of regulating high energy systems, like modern civilisation. I just don't advocate it until we know what effect our controls will have. I would also be more comfortable if I didn't know many swivel-eyed bastards who indulge waking dreams of ordering people about simply for the puritanical thrill of it.

[JFSOCC]

that's probably very wise.