Originally posted by zeeblebotSurvival of the fittest - the weak go to the wall. Is that it? Not what happens though. After all, by your thinking, T Rex ought to rule the world. It sure was tough and not weak! In fact, by your thinking, T Rex is about the best we have to look forward to. Dismal.
with a progressive tax system?
The fittest is the adaptation that fits best with its environment. If humanity wants a future as a species, then this will require collaboration, collective effort, mutual support.
As for quality if life, All the evidence favours the Scandanavian model. The US, by contrast, is going to hell in a handcart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_model#Performance
In recent years the following official figures have been reported:
* Between 1984 and 2002, Sweden's GDP growth was 36% compared to 111% in Ireland.
* High growth in the last years, (10,05 percent for the EU to 15 on 2000-2004, 15% for Finland 12.3% for Sweden, 4.4% for Sweden and 5.5% for Finland in 2006.
* Low unemployment, the lowest of the European union for Denmark (3.4% in March 2007&hellip😉 after having known high levels 10 years ago (9,1% in Sweden, 9.6% to Denmark and 16.3% in Finland for 1993
* Official poverty risk rate are 9% in Sweden, 10% in Denmark, 11% in Finland, 13% in France and 19% in United Kingdom.
* According to libertarian think tank Timbro, when measured by wealth, the poor have less wealth than in the United States. For instance, they live in smaller apartments, have lower home ownership, and have less household equipment. These findings are however contradicted by a peer-reviewed study in the American Economic Review by American economist Lane Kenworthy who found that the percentage of household living on less than 40% of U.S. median household income (adjusted for household size) was lowest in the Nordic countries, and much lower than in the U.S.
* Governments have committed to fiscal responsibility. In 2004, Sweden, Finland and Denmark presented an excess of the public accounts (respectively of 1.2%, 1.9% and 2.6% of the GDP), whereas France presented a deficit of 3.7% and United Kingdom a deficit of 3.1%.
* Flight of capital, as is often seen in any country where taxes are significantly higher than their neighbors, incentive to move ones financial dealings outside of the country to avoid taxation can become a problem. As a result, some Danes and Swedes have emigrated or based their financial affairs outside of their home countries. Examples of this include Ingvar Kamprad, the Swede who founded furniture retail chain IKEA, who has lived in Switzerland for the past 30 years, while the Ikea business operates through a Netherlands-based holding company. Janus Friis, the co-founder of Skype, is now based in the UK and another very recent Danish example is the boxer Mikkel Kessler, who rebased to Monaco in 2007. Stephen Kinnock, son of former UK Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, and the husband of party leader Helle Thorning Schmidt of the Social Democrats, also doesn't base himself in Denmark. This latter case is perhaps unsurprising as he is not Danish has always worked for British or international organizations based outside of Denmark even though his wife and children live in Denmark.
* The extensive social services network can potentially lead to situations where a statistically significant amount of people live exclusively on unemployment benefits, without seeking employment. The magnitude of this problem is not certain, but it is worth noting that the countries following the Nordic model have very low unemployment.
* As globalisation becomes a more accepted part of business and personal life, many companies are becoming more aware of international opportunities to cut costs, as with the high taxes and high cost of living, they are finding they can recruit employees cheaper abroad. Thus outsourcing and offshoring are becoming very common, especially in sectors such as IT and manufacturing, and many building construction companies are importing labour from the new Eastern European members of the European Union, rather than recruit internally and pay Nordic salary levels.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt makes one wonder why something has to grow to be good, yet fails to be good when stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_model#Performance
In recent years the following official figures have been reported:
* Between 1984 and 2002, Sweden's GDP growth was 36% compared to 111% in Ireland.
* High growth in the last years, (10,05 percent for the EU to 15 on 2000-2004, 15% for Finland 12.3% for Sweden, 4.4% for Sweden and 5 ...[text shortened]... an members of the European Union, rather than recruit internally and pay Nordic salary levels.
Originally posted by shavixmirAbsolutely. For example, Ireland's Celtic Tiger 111% growth is against a much lower base than Sweden's 36%, so what is it telling me? That Ireland was catching up? Well whatever the position it has not been sustained in the past year. China has done much better than the US and the US (of necessity) borrows what China saves in order to pay for its unaffordable consumerism - does that mean the US ought to try communism or do away with democracy? I certainly imagine a US capitalist is now more likely to invest in Chinese than in American factory workers, never mind Scandinavian, because they will not pay the proper social or environmental costs of production. They reap the rewards and the costs are socialised.
It makes one wonder why something has to grow to be good, yet fails to be good when stable.
Originally posted by utherpendragonExcellent. Then you should have no problem naming one single country with a high quality of life that doesn't have a progressive tax system.
fact: you dont know jack!
The fact that you can't/won't proves me right, yet again.
You should have no problem no problem pointing out bills passed by Republicans abolishing progressive taxation.
The fact that you can't/won't proves me right, yet again.
Originally posted by finneganexactly. if an economy has $10 million and grows by $11 million, it has grown 110%, but if a country has an economy of $100 billion and grows by $36 billion then they have only seen 36% increase. percetages make little impact on the argument.
Absolutely. For example, Ireland's Celtic Tiger 111% growth is against a much lower base than Sweden's 36%, so what is it telling me? That Ireland was catching up? Well whatever the position it has not been sustained in the past year. China has done much better than the US and the US (of necessity) borrows what China saves in order to pay for its unaffordab ...[text shortened]... cial or environmental costs of production. They reap the rewards and the costs are socialised.
one economy grew $11 million the other $36 billion, which one gre more?
btw: these numbers were simplified for illustration sake and in no way represent actual gdp's (for all you literalists out there)
Originally posted by zeeblebotI love these figures. Maybe zeeblebot is my friend after all!
*
"The percentage of household living on less than 40% of U.S. median household income (adjusted for household size) was lowest in the Nordic countries, and much lower than in the U.S."
Right so that is not ok is it? For a lot of people the US model is not working.
"The extensive social services network can potentially lead to situations where a statistically significant amount of people live exclusively on unemployment benefits, without seeking employment. The magnitude of this problem is not certain, but it is worth noting that the countries following the Nordic model have very low unemployment."
Curious - effective benefit systems do not cause excessive dependency on handouts after all. Gosh - maybe some people get into a situation where, with state help, they are enabled to get back on their feet and do what most of us prefer to do - contribute economically instead of being abandoned down a hole without a ladder.
"Governments have committed to fiscal responsibility."
Remarkable again, If there is one country that relies on stunning levels of irresponsible state borrowing that turns out to be good old tax averse U S of A. Yet you do not get good value for all that borrowing. You get foreign wars. You get environmental degradation. You get social decay. You get an insanely costly drugs war. You get bridges falling down, electricity supplies that fail. You get horrible housing for many and a stupid proportion of your people in the prison system. You get schools (California) that can't afford books. You want the benefits of a sophisticated society and you are too thick to see that you must pay for them.
And how many Americans in great economic positions have to go bankrupt when ill health strikes because your health system is a disgrace?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"You should have no problem no problem pointing out bills passed by Republicans abolishing progressive taxation." -parottpooper
Excellent. Then you should have no problem naming one single country with a high quality of life that doesn't have a progressive tax system.
The fact that you can't/won't proves me right, yet again.
You should have no problem no problem pointing out bills passed by Republicans abolishing progressive taxation.
The fact that you can't/won't proves me right, yet again.
Do you always stutter like this or only when you type ?
Originally posted by utherpendragonDo we really need to get into juvenile name calling and calling people out on typos?
[b]"You should have no problem no problem pointing out bills passed by Republicans abolishing progressive taxation." -parottpooper
Do you always stutter like this or only when you type ?[/b]
I understand that we don't always agree with each other, but let's try to keep our debating niveau a little higher than that, eh?
But USAP, let's forget for a second that the progressive tax system is what we have. What about Z's initial point? Does a progressive tax system try to buck evolution? If so, does that make it a bad idea? I've been accused of defending things because that's they way they are and have been. So, let me reverse the roles. Should progressive taxation be abolished?
To be the first to answer my own question, I don't think human society has to obey the laws of nature as they exist amongst the lesser species. Humans are beyond mere survival of the fittest. We are capable of kindness and compassion beyond the evolutionary familial instincts that animals show. We are knowledgeable and wise enough to allow all of us to have resources adequate for survival. Competition is necessary to have the most efficient marketplace. But I don't think it is necessary for there to be competition for all resources necessary to survive.
Originally posted by sh76Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Do we really need to get into juvenile name calling and calling people out on typos?
I understand that we don't always agree with each other, but let's try to keep our debating niveau a little higher than that, eh?
But USAP, let's forget for a second that the progressive tax system is what we have. What about Z's initial point? Does a progressive tax syst ...[text shortened]... hink it is necessary for there to be competition for all resources necessary to survive.